7 Mar 2005
At least two of the four reasons given by the trial judge for rejecting the defendant's account were unsupported by the evidence or not put by the prosecution; those unsupported credibility findings rendered the verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory, therefore the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted for retrial.
5 Nov 2002
Conviction was affirmed because the psychiatric material was available or could have been raised at trial, contemporaneous evidence showed the appellant understood proceedings, and the fresh evidence did not render the conviction unsafe; however, sentence was substituted with a hospital order for two months because the appellant suffers serious mental disorder and requires treatment.
24 Jun 1992
The application to adduce fresh expert evidence under s.83V was refused because the defence had ample opportunity during the trial adjournment to obtain and call such evidence and failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay; the trial judge's credibility findings were open on the evidence and the convictions were not unsafe, so leave to appeal was refused.
3 Jun 1991
The fresh evidence that the investigating officer engaged in inducements/payments and manipulative conduct with the Crown's accomplice witnesses so undermined the credibility of those witnesses and the fairness of the trials that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory; the appeals were allowed, convictions quashed and retrials ordered.
25 Sept 1990
The Court allowed the appeal, holding that discovery of identical 25‑character passages in cautioned statements from another case materially undermined the credibility of the police officer (D.P.C. 22705) and therefore the cautioned statements admitted at trial could not be relied upon; the conviction was unsafe and was quashed and the detention order set aside.