5 Nov 2024
Application for a stay was dismissed: the judge concluded that the publicity was predominantly historic or manageable and that robust judicial directions plus trial measures (use of exemplar yoga balls, directions about prior conviction being irrelevant, and other safeguards) would secure a fair retrial; destruction of the original yoga ball did not justify staying proceedings.
12 Sept 2024
The single-judge refused leave to appeal because the trial judge did not err in principle nor impose a manifestly excessive sentence: the offences were serious, the applicant actively participated in group violence and later disposed of shoes to defeat identification, mitigating factors (including volunteer service and some provocation) were insufficient to outweigh aggravating features, and the totality principle supported the cumulative sentence of five years six months.
7 Dec 2021
The appeal was dismissed because it was filed almost 14 months out of time and no extension was granted on established criteria; further, the substantive claim against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants disclosed no reasonable cause of action because no duty of care arose from the defendants' prosecutorial or policing decisions and the plaintiff had no copyright in the discovered case documents, so the strike‑out order was properly upheld.
14 Mar 2017
The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrate was entitled to find that the appellant's deliberate departure from the scene and delay in reporting materially impeded the investigation and likely reduced recorded breath alcohol readings, constituting aggravating conduct that justified a suspended custodial sentence; the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
8 Dec 2005
On the evidence taken as a whole the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there were separate, dishonest agreements: (a) to create a false or misleading appearance of active trading in Shanghai Land shares (June 2002–May 2003) and (b) to create a false or misleading appearance regarding the market/price affecting BOC (March–31 May 2003). PW1’s central role, corroborated documentary and bank-fund analysis, expert analysis of turnover, coaching meetings and admissions established agreement, dishonest intent per Ghosh and acts in furtherance. The Fifth and Second Accused actively par…
6 Sept 2005
The Court upheld the factual findings of the trial judge that no prejudice or bad faith was shown from the destruction of intercepted tapes; applied the balance of probabilities standard for prejudice and reaffirmed that stays for abuse of process or interruption of trial by judicial review are exceptional; therefore refusal of leave and dismissal of the appeal was correct and the criminal trial should continue.
12 Mar 1998
The Court held that the evidence of the earlier raid (scale and resealable bags, and absence of drug‑taking apparatus) was relevant and probative to the central issue of trafficking versus personal consumption, that destruction of the items did not render the evidence inadmissible where the applicant accepted the police findings, and that the trial judge fairly summed up the evidence to the jury; accordingly the application to appeal against conviction had no merit and was dismissed.
20 Dec 1995
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal: the trial judge was entitled to find the applicant's admissions voluntary; the fingerprint evidence, preserved by photography, was admissible despite destruction of the original exhibit because preservation was adequate and no prejudice arose; and the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient regarding the glove-wearing robber.
26 May 1988
The ex parte Anton Piller order was discharged because the plaintiff committed material non-disclosure by presenting the Mold Information Sheet as confidential when it was not and failed to adduce evidence of a real risk of destruction or concealment of evidence; additionally there was no justification for making the order against the 2nd defendant, rendering Mayo J.'s order an abuse of process.