22 Feb 2016
Appeal allowed because the trial contained material procedural defects: the judge failed adequately to explain to a self-represented appellant the difference between mid-trial submissions and giving evidence and failed to address and record the defence case; combined with the circumstantial nature of the prosecution case this rendered the conviction unsafe and required quashing.
5 Aug 2013
The fingerprint on the inside front panel of the drawer was complete and showed no signs of having been disturbed by the complainant's cleaning; on the evidence it was therefore placed after the cabinet was acquired and, given the lack of opportunity for the applicant to have touched the cabinet thereafter, the fingerprint established the applicant's presence in the flat during the burglary and supported a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; speculative alternative explanations did not create reasonable doubt.
6 Jul 2011
The Court refused leave to appeal because the trial judge permissibly found on the evidence that between 27 March and 1 April 2007 the applicant became part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice: the deliberate concealment of a record of interview and presentation of a misleading investigation file had the tendency to affect prosecution decisions and the judge was entitled to reject the applicant's out-of-court explanations and draw adverse inferences from the surrounding circumstances; any error about the source of the photographs was harmless because the judge expressly fo…
24 May 2011
The Court held the trial judge correctly applied the two-part test (objective grounds a reasonable person would have and proof the defendant knew those grounds); the factual matrix (custody of chequebook/chop/statements, signing blank cheques, mortgaging properties, salary) provided sufficient primary evidence to permit the inference that the applicants knew grounds for belief the monies were proceeds of indictable offences; therefore convictions and 12-month custodial sentences were upheld as not manifestly excessive.
12 Apr 2007
The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate properly accepted the credible evidence of the undercover officers and the surrounding circumstantial evidence (room rentals, conduct, items seized and the notebook) provided a rational and irresistible inference of a conspiracy to live on the earnings of prostitution such that the conviction was not unsafe even if P55 was given weight without separate submissions.
2 Sept 2005
The Tribunal's denial of costs under SIDO s.26A(5)(d) was justified because, on the evidence, the applicant as the chairman's wife sold a large block of shares over a short period, gave weak and inconsistent explanations and thus knew or ought to have known that the sale would likely prompt an inquiry; the Tribunal's inference was reasonable and not amenable to being overturned on judicial review.
20 Mar 2003
Given the applicant was the lawful tenant, present at the premises when infringing items and drugs were found, there was no evidence of lawful subletting or licence and the applicant elected not to give evidence to explain his presence, the trial judge properly drew the only permissible inference that the applicant knew of and was in possession of the items; those inferences satisfied the burden of proof and the convictions were safe.
15 Nov 1999
Section 60 removed the old mandatory corroboration direction; the trial judge properly exercised discretion in assessing accomplice testimony, sought independent supportive evidence where available, correctly admitted post-arrest conduct as probative of knowledge/participation against A1 and A2, and the totality of direct and circumstantial evidence (banking records, cash transfers, seized items, videotape and consistent accomplice testimony) proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; convictions are safe.
Despite strong suspicions about aspects of the evidence (cords and wounds), the appellate court would not supplant the trial judge's factual findings because the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and had been satisfied the robbery occurred; therefore the appeal is dismissed.