21 Sept 2021
Leave to appeal was granted because the ground that the judge's directions exceeded proper bounds by inviting the jury to infer fabrication from lack of puttage without mentioning innocent explanations was reasonably arguable.
3 Mar 2004
The magistrate accepted the victim as an honest and convincing witness, found that the appellant made threatening calls amounting to menaces and an unwarranted demand within s.23 of the Theft Ordinance, and having considered the appellant's interview and good character (propensity), held there was no material unfairness or bias; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal must be dismissed.
18 Feb 1998
The Court dismissed the applications: juror drowsiness did not invalidate the trial because the judge monitored and intervened and no counsel applied for discharge; the judge properly directed the jury on assessing credibility and on bad character exceptions; the evidence (including circumstantial) sufficed to support convictions; and the sentences, including 13 years for arson and a total of 14 years for D1, were within lawful bounds given multiple aggravating features.