31 May 2024
On the evidence the court accepted the police witnesses as credible, rejected the defendants' accounts as inherently improbable, and held beyond reasonable doubt that both defendants were aware of and jointly trafficked in the total quantities of drugs seized from the Room; that finding forms the basis for sentencing.
19 Dec 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the trial Magistrate's acceptance of the prosecution witnesses' contemporary observations that liquid was flowing through a hose into the tugboat was rationally open on the evidence; photographs taken hours later showing a dry hose and a closed valve did not establish tampering or negate the witnesses' account when there was no evidence of the hose's condition or handling at the earlier time. The Magistrate did not draw an adverse inference from A1's statement and correctly applied the law that a lie alone is not proof of guilt; hence the convictions were safe…
10 Feb 2000
The trial judge rightly admitted the applicant's statements as voluntary despite absence of videotaping; the issues about the physical condition and photographs of the drugs were matters for the jury and did not render the exhibits absent or the conviction unsafe; the judge's directions on possession were appropriate and not prejudicial; no fair trial irregularity was shown and the conviction stands.
12 Dec 1996
The trial judge's failure to consider material evidence — namely the distinctive mark on the $500 bank note which was not produced or addressed in the reasons for verdict — rendered the conviction unsafe despite strong identification and an alleged admission; accordingly the conviction was quashed.
8 Oct 1985
An unexplained nine‑hour gap in custody of the seized suspected drugs meant the integrity of the exhibit could not be assured; the conviction was therefore unsafe and was quashed.
27 Jan 1978
The magistrate lawfully preferred the police evidence, the betting slip being contemporaneously associated with the 1st appellant and the paging call identifying "Ah Yin" tied that name to the appellant; those findings provided sufficient evidence of bookmaking and of the 2nd appellant permitting the premises to be used for gambling and there was no sufficient ground to disturb the convictions.