9 Dec 2008
Given the unusual background between parties, lack of outgoing call records, the voicemail anomaly suggesting possible incoming attempts by the complainant, and absence of clear motive, the Court found reasonable doubt as to whether the calls were made for the purpose of annoyance and quashed the conviction as unsafe.
25 Apr 2006
The applicant's act of dialing the interactive system with intent to cause annoyance constituted "making" the telephone calls under s20(c); s20(c) does not require proof of the matters in s20(a) which are separate; the element of persistence was established by the admitted calls (18 false bookings in July-August 2004); leave to appeal is refused.
21 May 2002
The magistrate's factual findings rejecting the appellant's return‑call/prankster defence and that the calls were made without reasonable cause were safe, but the evidence in fact established two distinct periods of persistent calling separated by a 17‑day cessation, meaning the charge as particularised (single continuing offence from 1 May to 18 June 2001) was substantively defective; the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter for trial before another magistrate on an amended charge particularising one continuous period (1 June 2001 to 18 June 2001).
13 May 2002
The court applied an objective standard to 'reasonable cause' under s20(c), held that the massive number and persistence of calls justified the inference that the purpose was to annoy and that there was no reasonable cause, found no reversal of the prosecution's burden, treated post‑offence calls only as admissible for complainant credibility, and concluded the magistrate properly considered and rejected the contested evidence; accordingly the conviction stands and the appeal is dismissed.