1 Jun 2016
The High Court allowed the appeal, holding the trial judge erred in depriving the acquitted appellant of full costs on the grounds of supposed self‑incrimination and pre‑trial non‑disclosure; in the circumstances the appellant’s withholding of the video did not constitute a positive reason to deny full costs and the appellant is entitled to full trial costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
27 Dec 2001
1st appellant's appeal dismissed because evidence from PW1 supported resisting conviction and the attempted arrest was lawful; acquittal on assault was a benefit of doubt and did not render the arrest unlawful. 3rd appellant's conviction quashed because the magistrate failed to make necessary specific findings resolving direct conflicts between PW1 and PW7 and improperly treated a joint charge as severable without amendment. Appeals by 2nd and 4th appellants on costs dismissed because magistrate properly exercised s3(1)(c) discretion in light of appellants' unruly conduct and the bound over o…
3 May 1994
The convictions were quashed because the magistrate failed to adequately consider the medical evidence and the 1st defendant's contemporaneous cautioned statement, there was no direct evidence linking the 5th defendant to the alleged obstruction and the injuries were inconsistent with the prosecution's account, rendering the convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory.