2 Feb 2024
The applicant provided only bare allegations without particulars and no reasonably arguable grounds to challenge the Board’s findings that the claim was a private-law matter lacking convention reasons; absent errors of law or manifest wrongness in the Deputy Judge’s assessment, his refusal of leave must be upheld and the appeal dismissed.
26 Apr 2012
Judge found plaintiff's oral evidence inherently unreliable and evasive, concluded Q1–Q3 were forged by cut-and-paste, found the six vouchers were not genuine acknowledgements of loans as pleaded, and on the totality of evidence the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the loans were advanced; accordingly claim dismissed.
30 Sept 2010
Magistrate acted properly in assisting an unrepresented appellant and made a credibility determination supported by cogent reasons (including witness demeanour and contextual evidence); the overlooked question about payment records was harmless and would not have altered the outcome; therefore the conviction and sentence were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
29 Apr 2009
Although a prima facie case existed, the totality of the evidence did not permit a safe inference that the appellant knew the bag contained ketamine; the boyfriend's confession and lack of independent incriminating evidence against the appellant left a lurking doubt rendering the conviction unsafe and justifying quashing of conviction and sentence.
9 Feb 2007
Although the trial judge found he had seen and heard the defendant and his witness and assessed their credibility, the binding authority in So Amy v Au Leslie requires caution before ordering witness statements to stand where credibility may be in issue; accordingly leave to appeal must be granted despite the judge's view that the appeal's prospects are slim.
23 Oct 2006
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the magistrate fairly assessed the evidence, her findings were not shown to be unsafe or unsatisfactory, and the matters advanced do not constitute a substantial and grave injustice warranting leave.
17 Aug 2006
The appellate court held that the discrepancies in witness accounts were minor and immaterial; the magistrate's credibility findings based on demeanour were entitled to deference; the appellant's affirmative representations and subsequent conduct objectively amounted to a knowing false representation that he was the driver at the time of the collision and thus intended to pervert the course of public justice; conviction was therefore safe but, given mitigation, the custodial sentence was substituted with a 40-hour community service order.
29 May 2006
The application was dismissed because the trial judge's credibility findings were properly reached on the totality of the evidence, the identified inconsistencies were not material, the defence failed to call available corroborating witnesses, the defence witness was unreliable and delayed, and the medical evidence did not negate the core account of injury.
1 Mar 2005
The magistrate accepted the police officers' evidence that the appellant orally admitted he was delivering the drugs for someone; on that basis, together with undisputed possession of the packets whose contents were proved by the Government Chemist, the prosecution established the elements of trafficking beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction is upheld.
2 Apr 2004
The Court held the applicant's statements at the 1995 meeting were admissible and highly probative corroboration of the complainant; the trial judge reasonably preferred the treating psychiatrist and properly assessed credibility including demeanour; the prejudicial effect did not outweigh probative value and, on the totality of the evidence, the conviction was safe, so leave to appeal was refused.