27 Mar 2026
Application refused: the proposed points are academic or without reasonable arguability and do not meet the threshold of being of great and general importance; the judge on rehearing had considered good character impact and did not improperly rely on traffic records, and the right to silence was not infringed in the circumstances of this case.
12 Apr 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because none of the seven grounds advanced were reasonably arguable: the judge's summing-up and directions (including on good character, demeanour and interview reliability) were adequate, the evidence permitted the only reasonable inference of knowledge and conspiracy, and any alleged interpreter/translation issues did not render the evidence unreliable or the convictions unsafe.
9 Feb 2024
The appellate court concluded the magistrate properly evaluated the evidence and credibility, was not plainly wrong in rejecting the appellant's account, had considered the appellant's clear record and propensity and the law on dishonesty, and therefore the inference of dishonest intent was properly drawn and the conviction must stand.
7 Dec 2022
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction because the magistrate applied the wrong legal test (treating the offence as assault rather than assessing battery with subjective recklessness), produced internally inconsistent findings as to recklessness across the touches, and failed to give an adequate good character direction; as a result the conviction was unsafe on rehearing.
24 Jun 2022
The trial judge's factual findings that the appellant's mask was pulled down exposing nose and mouth were not plainly wrong, the prosecution's witnesses were credible and their evidence proved the statutory elements beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant had no lawful authority or reasonable excuse; therefore the conviction is upheld.
6 May 2022
On the facts: (1) Hoang — the judge's comments about absence of fingerprints/DNA were contextual, reflected unchallenged evidence about what was examined and did not amount to material misdirection; appeal dismissed. (2) Manan — the trial judge erred by directing the jury that the absence of fingerprints 'proves nothing one way or the other' in unequivocal terms, thereby usurping the jury's fact-finding role; that ground established, conviction quashed and sentence set aside; retrial ordered; good character and interpreter grounds rejected.
6 May 2022
Hoang: the judge's remarks about absence of fingerprints were appropriate in the factual context and did not amount to a material misdirection. Manan: the trial judge erred by directing the jury that the absence of fingerprints "proves nothing one way or the other" in circumstances where the absence was a central, contested, and relevant fact relied upon by the defence; that direction amounted to usurpation of the jury's fact-finding role, so Manan's conviction was unsafe and was quashed; grounds on good character and interpreter assistance failed on the facts; retrial ordered and proviso ref…
4 May 2022
The trial judge’s adverse credibility findings about the appellant were supported by cumulative evidence (CCTV, admissions, circumstances and internal company procedures); omission to give a full propensity limb on good character did not render the verdict unsafe; applying Ghosh the appellant’s conduct and statements established dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt, therefore conviction and suspended custodial sentence were upheld.
26 Jan 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because none of the applicant's grounds were reasonably arguable: the evidence linked him to the flat and drugs, the judge's directions on possession and joint possession were adequate, counsel's conduct was a competent tactical choice not flagrant incompetence, there was no sufficient basis to leave an alternative s37 verdict, prior convictions negated any entitlement to a good character direction, and alleged challenges to CCTV or admissions were not supported by instruction or evidence.
3 Dec 2021
The Court held the applicant's murder conviction was sustainable because the jury could permissibly find a joint enterprise to apply substances while attributing differing mens rea to participants; the judge did not err in redacting irrelevant portions of the applicant's VRIs, was entitled to withhold a formal good‑character direction given the applicant's admissions of dishonesty, and adequately presented the defence expert evidence regarding injections not causing death; accordingly there was no legal or factual basis to disturb the conviction.