7 May 2018
The magistrate reasonably accepted the prosecution evidence that the appellant's observed conduct in moving crates between vehicles supported the inference he had taken up employment contrary to s38AA; there was evidence on which a reasonable tribunal could convict and no legal error was shown, so the conviction was upheld.
25 Jan 2000
The court held the inadvertent inclusion of the Hutchison SIM card in the exhibit bag was an unfortunate irregularity but immaterial because the mobile phone evidence did not contribute to proving the charge, the jury were properly directed not to speculate and to resolve doubts in favour of the defendant, and therefore the conviction was safe; on sentence the imposed term fell within established guidelines and was not excessive.
3 Nov 1995
The appeal was dismissed because the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's active role as steersman, the vessel's poor seaworthiness increasing gravity, and the trial judge's lawful application of a four-year starting point with an appropriate discount for guilty plea and custody; the claimed hearing impairment was disproved by specialist examination.
11 Feb 1992
The conviction was unsafe because the charge omitted an essential element relied upon ('without reasonable excuse'), there was no specific finding that the alleged zig-zag manoeuvre endangered persons' safety, and the resultant sentence of 3 months imprisonment was excessive; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence cannot stand.
13 Nov 1985
The trial judge's unfortunate phrasing was judicial shorthand and did not render the identification evidence unreliable; conviction is safe and is affirmed. However the original sentence of three years was excessive in all the circumstances and unjustifiably disparate with co-accused; it is substituted with two years imprisonment.
11 May 1971
The court disposed of this appeal by direct reference to the reasoning set out in its judgment in Criminal Appeal No.223 of 1971, which furnished the basis for dealing with this case differently.
23 Mar 1970
Because the charge merely alleged 'using' the vehicle and no facts or admissions were placed before the magistrate establishing that the appellant was the driver, the magistrate had no lawful basis under Section 23 to order disqualification; therefore the disqualification orders were set aside.
The appeal is allowed for the reasons given in Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 1968.