19 Mar 2018
The conviction was quashed because the crucial factual issue—whether and where the car door struck the witness—was tainted by inconsistent and changing testimony which the trial magistrate failed to properly analyse or explain; given those unresolved inconsistencies the conviction could not be regarded as safe and satisfactory despite the appellant's objectionable conduct.
11 Nov 2011
The magistrate properly assessed credibility: PW1 was found honest and reliable and identified the appellant; PW3 was found unreliable due to influence of alcohol and inconsistent account of his injuries; the discrepancies between PW1 and PW3 were immaterial to the essential identification and did not undermine PW1's evidence. Therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal was dismissed.
4 Oct 2010
The magistrate’s detailed credibility assessment was within permissible bounds: minor inconsistencies were attributable to blurred memory, the admissions to two colleagues were reliable and compelling, and there was no evidential basis for alternative non‑dishonest defences; accordingly the conviction was safe and should be affirmed.
9 Mar 1999
Because the magistrate did not adequately resolve material and significant inconsistencies in the evidence (timing and diagnosis of the finger injury, whether the struggle continued when police arrived, and the reasons for rejecting defence evidence), the conviction was rendered unsafe and was therefore quashed on appeal.
6 Oct 1988
The appeal was allowed because the magistrate's Statement of Findings did not show how material inconsistencies affecting credibility were resolved; that failure rendered the conviction unsafe and required quashing of conviction and sentence.