16 Sept 2024
The court held that the prosecution had established prima facie authenticity of the digital evidence extracted from the defendant's iPhone using Cellebrite and that police expert 8774 was qualified to give the necessary expert evidence; therefore the Cellebrite-derived exhibits are admissible, while further challenges to reliability and weight are matters for the jury at trial.
14 Dec 2023
Leave to appeal against conviction refused for Grounds 1–6 because the trial directions were adequate and the complained matters were not reasonably arguable; leave granted for Ground 7 because omission to direct on the co-conspirator rule in relation to certain texts and statements was reasonably arguable. Leave to appeal against sentence granted on all grounds because issues about the appropriate starting point for very large quantities and the quantum and aggregation of enhancements (role and international element) raised arguable questions including application of the totality principle.
14 Jul 2023
The Court held that service of the case-stated documents did not comply with statutory requirements for certain absent defendants and therefore the appeal as to those defendants could not proceed; on the merits the regional court judge erred in law in his approach to conspiracy (a two-person agreement can constitute conspiracy to participate in a riot/unlawful assembly if the parties intended or knew the requisite participation of others) and materially mis-evaluated and fragmented contextual evidence rather than assessing it holistically, such that acquittals of several defendants were perve…
9 Dec 2019
Leave to appeal was granted only on the reasonably arguable point that the judge may not have sufficiently and appropriately set out the factual basis on which he convicted each applicant of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office; all other grounds (hearsay of WhatsApp numbers, knowledge of confidentiality, identification challenges, voice expert, co-conspirator rule and other specific complaints) were found not reasonably arguable on the record because the judge relied on a body of evidence (covert audio, Whatsapp, surveillance observations and independent linking facts) sufficient…
24 Oct 2019
A1 and A2: the Court held the surveillance and supporting environmental evidence were admissible and sufficiently connected those applicants to the smuggling operation; separate consideration of counts was not shown to have produced unsafe convictions and their appeals were dismissed. A3: the Court found the surveillance/admitted facts did not properly apply to her and the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was a member of the conspiracy; her conviction was quashed.
9 Apr 2019
Where prosecution proves chain of custody and reliability of the end devices that produced and stored WhatsApp records by combining end-user testimony and credible digital-forensics evidence, those records are admissible without s.22A certificates; prosecution need not prove every intermediary computer in transmission chain; however messages remain hearsay unless they fall within exceptions (declaration against interest or co-conspirator rule), and the court must guard against undue prejudice including by severance when necessary.
3 Apr 2019
The judge admitted specific WhatsApp messages against each defendant to the extent they met recognised exceptions to the hearsay rule — declaration against interest, co-conspirator rule, or non-hearsay use — and excluded messages that were too vague or where the defendant's position was indistinguishable from non-accused group members prior to any clear admission; because the evidential weight and potential prejudice differed materially between D3 and D1/D2, the judge severed D1 and D2 from D3 and imposed a publication ban to prevent prejudice.
14 Nov 2014
Although the trial judge made erroneous findings about who provided the purchase monies, the appellate court held that the judge’s independent and untainted findings that the applicants entered a prior composite scheme of cross‑holding and bogus cross‑leasing established beneficial (financial) interests and dishonest intent to mislead the Government when claiming PTA; those findings rendered the convictions safe and the appeals were dismissed.
9 Apr 2014
The trial judge permissibly relied on PW2's independent contemporaneous eyewitness account of the transfer of money and two packets between appellant and D1; viewed in sequence and on logical grounds this established that the two packets provided by the appellant were the same items later handed to the undercover officers and exhibited as the seized cocaine; ancillary discrepancies in sketches/photos and uncertainty about who sealed exhibits did not materially undermine identification or credibility; accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal dismissed.
28 Nov 2012
Charge 1 convictions of husband and wife quashed because prosecution could not prove any non‑spousal co‑conspirator participation for that conspiracy (s159B(2)); convictions on Charges 3 and 4 were upheld because the trial judge lawfully accepted parts of unreliable witnesses that were corroborated by independent, convincing evidence (documentary records, banking trails, contemporaneous conduct) and correctly concluded the $32,000,000 payments were 'payments in connection with' the conspiracy and therefore 'proceeds' within OSCO s2(6)/s25; stay application was rightly refused as not exception…