9 Apr 2026
The trial judge rightly accepted the victims' consistent identification evidence and related documentary evidence and permissibly inferred the applicant's participation in a joint fraudulent scheme; there is no demonstrable error warranting appellate intervention, so leave to appeal is refused.
2 Apr 2026
The court refused bail because the applicant failed to demonstrate even a reasonable prospect of success on appeal; the trial judge's detailed and proper identification findings based on multiple video segments and clothing comparison rendered the appeal unlikely to succeed, so the exceptional standard for bail pending appeal was not met.
9 Mar 2026
The High Court, conducting a rehearing, accepted the authenticity and sufficient clarity of the CCTV and matching clothing evidence; having applied Turnbull guidance and considered the appellant's complaints about hearing and hair differences, the court concluded the identification was reliable and the evidence proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the appeal was dismissed and conviction and sentence upheld.
13 Feb 2026
On rehearing and after viewing the CCTV (P2) and accepting police identification evidence, the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally pushed the victim's hand constituting common assault; the conviction is therefore upheld. Having considered the appellant's record and the similarity to a prior suspended sentence, activation of that suspended sentence and ordering consecutive terms was not erroneous or manifestly excessive, so the sentence is upheld.
28 Jan 2026
Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused because the applicant's grounds were factually unmeritorious or had been addressed at trial, allegations of counsel incompetence were unsupported and implausible, and the sentencing judge applied correct principles and arrived at a justified 44‑month term; bail pending appeal was refused for the same reasons and because the appeal prospects were not arguable.
14 Jan 2026
Bail pending appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any appeal with a reasonable, let alone very high, prospect of success; he had not shown he had served most or all of the sentence; and familial or custodial adjustment concerns did not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying bail.
24 Dec 2025
On rehearing the appellate judge accepted the magistrate's findings that PW1's identification was credible and reliable, found the circumstantial matrix supported an irresistible inference that the appellant was working while subject to a deportation order, held that absence of CCTV or forensic evidence did not undermine reliable identification, and concluded guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt; the sentence of 22 months and 15 days was appropriate and not excessive given prior similar conviction and conviction after trial.
19 Dec 2025
Leave to appeal was granted on ground #3 because, despite the trial judge's acceptance of PW1 and PW2, the appellate court found that the evidence did not exclude a reasonable doubt as to whether the person who presented the ID and withdrew the funds was the applicant; the trial judge had not established that the applicant was the only reasonable inference as the withdrawer.
16 Dec 2025
On rehearing the court accepted the Magistrate's credibility findings and held that the appellant's repeated transfer of a large quantity of perishable vegetables late at night, together with his recognizance status and the improbability of personal use, supported an irresistible inference of employment beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction was upheld.
11 Dec 2025
The Court dismissed the appeals against conviction: the identification and circumstantial evidence were sufficient and no material prejudice arose from the judge's redaction of part of the jury note or from answering the jury in writing after consulting counsel. The Court allowed the Secretary for Justice's review of sentence, holding the judge erred in principle by failing to give appropriate weight to the display of a firearm and other aggravating factors; original sentences were quashed and substituted with higher terms of imprisonment to reflect correct starting points.