28 Oct 2016
The trial judge permissibly accepted the evidence of PW1 and the investigating police as honest and reliable, found on the facts that the appellant drove without due care causing a collision, and the appellate court found no error in the judge's evaluation or legal approach; accordingly the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction must stand.
22 Aug 1995
Because the prosecution relied on a single police witness whose evidence was materially undermined by an apparent exaggeration (claiming he almost mounted a pavement that did not exist), the officer's credibility was cast into doubt and the conviction based solely on that evidence was unsafe; therefore the appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed.
24 Mar 1995
The Court held the convictions of both applicants were safe and satisfactory: the evidence against the 1st applicant was strong and the jury directions as to police evidence and alleged collusion were adequate for the 2nd applicant; the 1st applicant’s sentence of 8 years was not excessive; leave to appeal was refused.
4 Dec 1991
Given the surrounding evidence that the applicant was implicated by co‑accused who were caught with the victim and had made statements implicating her, the judge did not err in explaining that 'target person' meant merely 'suspected' and was not a direction of guilt; the explanation was not prejudicial in context and leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
8 Oct 1986
Conviction quashed because reserving cross-examination of the prosecution witness constituted a material irregularity that deprived the defendant of knowing the whole case against him, and because the magistrate misdirected himself by effectively requiring proof of malice or corruption in the police evidence before accepting the defendant's account; presence of reasonable doubt required quashing the conviction.