3 Apr 2009
The isolated remark about police having 'a lot to lose' did not render the convictions unsafe because the judge proceeded to analyze the framing allegation and inconsistencies objectively and on the facts, finding the planting of a large quantity of drugs implausible; therefore the convictions were affirmed.
23 Nov 2001
The magistrate did not err: he thoroughly assessed PW1's credibility and the defence of framing, properly ruled the alleged oral admission voluntary and admissible for the general issue, and permissibly used the appellant's contemporaneous lack of complaint as evidence of inconsistency rather than as an adverse inference; accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal is dismissed.
15 May 1997
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge conducted a careful, full and detailed assessment of the evidence, properly accepted the police witnesses' testimony after addressing defence attacks including allegations of frame-up, and no error was shown that would justify appellate interference.