12 Aug 2009
The conviction was upheld because the magistrate was entitled to find PW1 credible; the content and duration of the 19‑second video and the appellant's voluntary admission established deliberate filming under the victim's skirt; the magistrate's interruptions were legitimate requests for clarification or administrative pauses and did not unfairly hinder cross‑examination.
15 May 2006
The court concluded that the trial judge's frequency and nature of interruptions during the cross-examination of the primary witness so interfered with defence counsel's ability to test the evidence that the conviction on the first charge was unsafe and had to be set aside; the second conviction was also not permitted to stand because the perception of a fair trial was too undermined, but the quality and weight of the second witness's evidence did not justify a retrial on that charge. The court therefore quashed both convictions, ordered a retrial on the first charge only, and awarded costs o…