9 Jul 2015
Leave to appeal was granted because the applicant established a reasonably arguable ground that the wholesale change and inconsistencies in the sole prosecution witness’s testimony could render the conviction unsafe, thereby meriting appellate scrutiny.
6 Mar 1998
The conviction was quashed because the identification evidence was unreliable and unsafe: the complainant's account was inconsistent and implausible as to duration and opportunity to observe, he was nervous and confused, gave only non‑distinguishing descriptors, and other evidence contained contradictions, so the conviction could not stand.
27 Dec 1990
The conviction was unsafe because the magistrate's use of 'and/or' produced inconclusive and alternative findings of fact; a conviction cannot rest on two possible but exclusive factual determinations, therefore the appeal was allowed and the conviction set aside.
22 Jul 1977
The conviction was unsafe and must be quashed because the charge lacked necessary particulars and a crucial item alleged to produce the incriminating fumes (the paper strip) was not examined by the Government Chemist; only a matchbox was sent and the chemist's certificate referred only to that exhibit, leaving the prosecution without proof of the charged act.