30 Sept 2016
The Appeal Committee granted leave because it concluded that the judge's summing up concerning the applicant's reaction and non-reaction to her suitcase could have caused substantial and grave injustice, satisfying the threshold for leave to appeal.
11 Jul 2013
The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge improperly left open to the jury an inference that the applicant knew of the drugs from the equivocal act of tearing and holding luggage tags; that act on the evidence was not capable of supporting the necessary inference of knowledge, so the misdirection was material and warranted quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial.
8 Mar 2007
Given the inconsistency between the applicant's account and the pathological evidence, the lies direction was necessary and was properly and adequately given; a flight direction was unnecessary because the accused admitted the unlawful killing and the only contested issue was intent; the summing up fairly presented the defence; therefore the conviction was not unsafe.
2 Nov 2005
The jury were entitled to accept the undercover officer's evidence and to infer from the surrounding circumstances, including the Applicant's words and possession of the mobile phone, that the Applicant knew and dealt in the dangerous drugs; the summing up was fair and there were no procedural irregularities warranting leave to appeal.
31 May 2005
Given the defence case that the alleged rape did not occur, the trial judge was entitled to exercise discretion not to draw attention to the applicant's cautioned statement or to focus on consent; that omission was not an arguable departure from accepted norms constituting substantial and grave injustice and therefore leave to appeal was properly refused.