26 Apr 2023
The plea was unequivocal; the defendant was adequately advised and understood the facts and the element of knowledge; there were no sufficient grounds in the interests of justice to exercise the court's discretion to allow reversal of plea; the application was refused and the matter listed for plea and sentence.
23 Oct 2020
D1: Leave to appeal against sentence granted to determine whether the reduced discounts in Ngo Van Nam apply retrospectively; appeal aid certificate granted. D2: Leave to appeal against conviction refused because grounds were not reasonably arguable; the jury were entitled to treat Cheung’s guilty plea and corroborating evidence as establishing knowledge and participation in the conspiracy and the summing-up and directions were proper.
3 Apr 2014
The application for bail pending appeal was refused because the court found the applicant did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal; although a substantial portion of the sentence might be served by the time of the appeal hearing, the chances of success were sufficiently remote to justify refusal of bail.
8 Jun 2012
First appellant's conviction and 14‑month sentence were upheld because the trial judge's findings on the evidence were lawful and the sentencing calculus (15‑month baseline reduced for mitigation) was appropriate; second and third appellants' acquittals were correct because prosecution failed to prove the knowledge element and the trial judge erred in denying costs based on suspicious conduct alone, therefore they are entitled to trial and appeal costs.
21 Jun 1996
Given the magistrate's knowledge of the appellant's recent guilty plea admitting knowledge, and that knowledge was the central element of the charges, the magistrate failed to apply the R v Gough 'real danger' test to the relevant circumstances and did not properly consider the possibility of unconscious bias; consequently there was a real danger of bias and the convictions were unsafe and must be quashed and the matter retried before a different magistrate.
17 Oct 1995
Because counsel at mitigation asserted the applicant was unaware a gun was in the bag and the trial judge did not clarify whether that assertion was maintained, the essential element of knowledge was not properly established; given the applicant had served three years and the Crown did not seek a retrial, the appropriate remedy was to quash the conviction and order release.
15 Oct 1976
The conviction was unsafe because there was no independent corroboration of the accomplice's evidence on the vital issue of the appellant's knowledge that the suitcase was stolen, and the magistrate erred in treating the appellant's denial or failure to mention contents as corroboration; therefore the conviction must be quashed.