24 Feb 2012
The magistrate lawfully considered the defence evidence, permissibly drew the only reasonable inference of intent to steal from the facts, any favourable good character direction did not prejudice the prosecution, and there was no legal or factual basis to disturb the conviction; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
20 Sept 2007
The court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction because the magistrate failed to identify, assess and resolve a material discrepancy in the prosecution witness's evidence between examination-in-chief and cross-examination and failed to consider the essential element of intention/knowledge to possess; those failures rendered the conviction unsafe.
21 Jun 2006
The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate properly accepted the prosecution witnesses and banking evidence, was entitled to succinctly reject the defence witness, and the single discrepancy between PW1 and PW2 was immaterial to the verdict; the magistrate's reasons were adequate in substance to support conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
1 Aug 2002
Because the magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for her verdict, the conviction was unsafe; the appeal is allowed, the convictions quashed and a retrial ordered despite the appellant's objection given the strength of the prosecution evidence.
7 Feb 2002
The appeal is allowed because the magistrate failed to address evidence that two prosecution witnesses had discussed a material matter and did not give reasons for accepting their evidence despite apparent collusion, thereby rendering the conviction unsafe.
11 May 2001
Because the prosecution failed to disclose bank statements and withdrawal slips that could have supported the appellant's account and affected the magistrate's assessment of his credibility, the nondisclosure left doubt as to whether a substantial and grave injustice had occurred; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the conviction set aside.
22 Jan 1999
Given the large number of similarly packaged cartons, the presence of opened cartons exposing dutiable cigarette packets, and the appellants' conduct in transporting cartons between warehouses, the court held that an irresistible inference arose that the appellants knew the goods were dutiable and that transporting/storing those goods amounted to dealing under s.17(1); the magistrate's limited reasons did not render convictions unsafe.
19 Sept 1997
The appeal was dismissed because the learned magistrate had properly evaluated the evidence, lawfully rejected the alibi, reasonably found PW2 to be sufficiently credible despite minor inconsistencies, and permissibly drew the inference that the appellant damaged the lock; no reversible error of law or fact was demonstrated.
20 Jun 1997
The magistrate had expressly noted the limited corroboration and the special need for caution, accepted the victim's credibility and rejected the applicant's explanation; therefore the conviction was safe and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
23 Apr 1997
The appeal is dismissed because the appellate court, after reviewing the record and the magistrate's reasons and credibility assessments, cannot conclude the conviction is unsafe; the magistrate permissibly found the appellant was on the wrong side and that caused the collision, constituting careless driving.