22 Dec 2017
Appeal allowed because the trial judge failed properly to address the mens rea requirement for conspiracy offences and erroneously applied s94A as removing the need to prove knowledge for a conspiracy charge; although the evidence may suffice, the correct course is to quash the convictions, stay sentence and remit the matter to the Magistrates' Court for retrial before a different magistrate.
28 Nov 2016
On the totality of the evidence the Court accepted the trial judge's factual findings that managerial instructions to treat VIP/workshop vehicles 'leniently' were directions to lower applicable standards and resulted in issuance of CORs where the prerequisite bona fide inspection and roadworthiness findings did not exist; such CORs were false within s69(a)(vii). Witness evidence, though consisting of cooperating guilty witnesses, was consistent on core matters and the judge's credibility findings were permissible. The appellants' challenges to conviction and, in A2's case, sentence failed; ap…
18 Aug 1992
Convictions on the procuring charge and the charge of exercising control/direction (charges 1 and 3) could not stand because Crown failed to prove essential elements: there was no evidence defendants knew the girl was under 21 and no evidence they exercised control, direction or influence beyond being customers; however convictions for making false or misleading statements intended to pervert the course of justice (charges 6,7,8,9) were properly sustained because the statements were deliberate distortions made with intent to deceive and had a tendency to interfere with the investigation even…
7 Feb 1986
Magistrate erred in law in applying Chong Chiu; on the uncontested facts (videos placed on vessel bound for Taiwan, no export licence, defendant as master agreeing to convey them) the evidential presumption under s.34 applied and the evidence sufficed to convict the respondent of conspiracy to export prohibited articles; conviction entered though no sentence imposed as respondent returned to Taiwan.
12 May 1976
The court convicted those whose conduct and repeated acts manifest agreement to pursue the unlawful object by distributing and cashing cheques from the bogus account (1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th on first charge) and held agreement could be inferred from circumstantial and documentary evidence; the 6th accused's advice to depart, to test immigration and to propose a false explanation amounted to acts done knowing or believing the persons had committed arrestable offences and intended to impede prosecution, thus guilty of the second charge (conspiracy) and guilty under s.90(1) C.P.O. for advising a fals…