7 Jun 2021
The court held the amendment to add Count 3 as an alternative to Count 2 was permissible under section 23(1) CrPO, Article 46 NSL does not prevent a three-judge court trying a non-NSL alternative count arising from the same facts, and no injustice or abuse of process would result; application to amend was allowed.
24 Apr 2020
An extension of time and leave to appeal were granted because the applicant raised a reasonably arguable ground that the sentencing judge may have miscarried in exercise of her discretion by failing to have regard to the full pre‑committal correspondence and by taking an adverse view of the discharge of counsel such that the discount for the guilty plea may have been wrongly assessed; further inquiry into communications between defence and prosecution was ordered to resolve that issue.
2 Nov 2006
1st applicant: Conviction for conspiracy to defraud upheld because PW32's admission together with independent evidence (use of forged cheques, false names, handovers and witness identifications) proved participation beyond reasonable doubt; leave to appeal conviction refused. Sentence reduced on appeal from 44 months to 18 months because of the applicant's youth and clear record. 2nd applicant: Prosecution conceded insufficient proof of conspiratorial agreement; conviction on the conspiracy charge quashed. Proposed amendment to theft on appeal refused because substitution would cause injustic…
6 Jul 1989
The evidence was equally consistent with the appellant merely assisting and did not support the magistrate's unarticulated finding of joint enterprise under S.7(1)(a); further, conviction on the alternative offence under S.7(1)(c) was not open without Attorney General consent; accordingly the conviction could not stand and was quashed.
23 Mar 1989
Section 57(1) codifies non-disclosure of informers; for drug prosecutions subsection (2)'s first limb narrowly permits disclosure only where informer wilfully made material false statements (not alleged here). The broader common law exception is preserved by s57(2) only for non-drug proceedings. Therefore Crown was correct to refuse assistance and judge was correct to prevent disclosure; judge erred in issuing a witness summons for an untraceable informer but that error did not prejudice conviction. Convictions on alternative charges cannot both stand; conviction on charge 2 is quashed and se…
30 Oct 1985
The magistrate erred in admitting and relying on previous convictions under section 29(3)(b) because the accused was being proceeded against on an alternative charge of theft (thus the subsection did not apply), and the magistrate wrongly treated evidence admitted under the subsection as giving rise to a presumption of guilty knowledge; accordingly the conviction on the handling charge was quashed.
14 Feb 1985
Convictions entered on alternative charges do not automatically require quashing of all counts; only one conviction may stand as a matter of law, and appellate courts may assume the correct standard of proof was applied absent misdirection; here the magistrate relied on extraneous and inadmissible matters and failed properly to consider lawful gambling exceptions and statutory burdens and presumptions, rendering the convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory and requiring quashing.
13 Apr 1973
Given the trial judge's findings that the appellant was involved in manufacturing opium and the quantity/value involved, the four-year sentence was not manifestly excessive; therefore the appellate court will not interfere and the sentence is affirmed.
17 Mar 1972
Where it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is either the thief or the handler, the choice between theft and handling may be made on the balance of probabilities and a conviction for the offence regarded as the more probable is permissible.
20 Nov 1969
Convictions for simple larceny that were alternative to convictions for demanding money with menaces must be quashed; sentences of 15 months on the demands with menaces counts were manifestly excessive and reduced to 6 months each to run concurrently, resulting in a total of 12 months imprisonment; the six month sentence for Triad membership is upheld; no order made on the two year police supervision.