11 Dec 2009
The conviction was quashed because the prosecution case was weakened by inconsistencies and deficiencies (notably PW2's contradictory evidence and the unsafe reliance on an alleged admission), and because the magistrate's method of assessment—including apparent premature acceptance of PW1 and unclear reliance on PW2—rendered the conviction unsafe.
20 Jul 2006
The magistrate properly exercised her discretion in assessing PW1 as a credible witness despite minor discrepancies and explanations for delayed reporting; the discrepancies were not material to undermine the conviction, and the magistrate's questioning of the appellant to clarify his asserted posture did not amount to prejudgment; accordingly the conviction was upheld.
19 Mar 1992
The trial judge properly evaluated the evidence, accepted the prosecution witnesses as credible, found the identification parade fair and sufficiently reliable, and concluded that the doubtful points raised by the applicant did not undermine the safety of the convictions; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.