9 May 2025
Appellant was the sole controller and driver of the vehicle; weapons were unlocked and readily accessible in glove compartment and boot; appellant offered no explanation or evidence to rebut the inference; therefore the only reasonable and irresistible inference was that he was in possession and guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt on rehearing.
20 Sept 2023
The Court held the primary factual findings (video evidence, location, clothing, equipment, timing and items recovered) supported the irresistible inference that the applicants were within the riot zone and intended by their presence to encourage collective disruptive conduct; consequently leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused and the convictions and concurrent sentences of 4 years 9 months were upheld.
29 Apr 2022
The applications to consolidate were refused because the prosecution failed to demonstrate that consolidation would not prejudice the defendants or that there was sufficient justification to alter milestone trial dates; consolidation would impose substantial additional preparation burdens, risk counsel unavailability and increased legal costs (especially for self-funded defendants), and the prosecution's estimates of efficiencies and trial length were optimistic and insufficient to overcome the demonstrated unfairness and practical difficulties.
29 Apr 2022
Applications to consolidate were dismissed because the court found significant potential prejudice to multiple defendants arising from increased complexity, inadequate time for new or reassigned counsel to prepare given the short interval before trial, realistic reassessment of witness lists and evidence, and optimistic prosecution time estimates; these factors outweighed the prosecution's justification and did not meet the threshold to displace established milestone dates.
29 Apr 2022
The applications to consolidate were dismissed because the prosecution failed to establish sufficiently that consolidation would not cause unfair prejudice to defendants or that there were adequate reasons to displace existing milestone trial dates; specific concerns included insufficient time for new preparation given the number and distinctness of witnesses and offences, likely additional legal costs especially for privately represented defendants, loss of counsel due to scheduling, optimistic prosecution time estimates, and insufficient justification to risk unfairness despite overlapping…
29 Apr 2022
The applications to consolidate were dismissed because the prosecution failed to show consolidation would not cause unfair prejudice: insufficient preparation time remaining, likely substantial additional work due to non-overlapping witnesses and evidence, real risk of counsel unavailability, underestimated trial duration making prejudice to defendants (including privately funded ones) likely, and practical resource constraints; therefore no sufficient reason to change milestone trial dates.
29 Apr 2022
Applications to consolidate were dismissed because the court found consolidation would cause unfair prejudice to defendants: insufficient time remained for effective preparation and for any newly assigned counsel to acquire instructions, several counsel had scheduling conflicts, prosecution's estimates of hearing length were optimistic, and COVID‑19 and court resource concerns compounded the risk of unfairness. The prosecution's assurances did not outweigh demonstrated prejudice and practical difficulties.
29 Apr 2022
The applications to consolidate were dismissed because consolidation would cause unfair prejudice to defendants by imposing significant additional preparation on defence teams within an inadequate timeframe, risk counsel unavailability, likely increase legal costs for privately funded accused, and relied on unrealistically optimistic prosecution estimates and insufficient assurances about court capacity and COVID‑19 risk mitigation; therefore the milestone trial dates should remain unchanged absent sufficient reasons to amend them.
11 Apr 2022
The court declined to consolidate DCCC115/112/114 because the existing split and timetable were a pragmatic allocation of limited court resources and there was insufficient justification to disturb that arrangement; the court granted consolidation of DCCC113/116 because the issues in the two indictments were sufficiently similar, projected facilities and timetable made joint trial practicable with limited prejudice to defendants, and there was adequate time to reassign counsel and prepare, hence listing the consolidated trial for 14 August to 9 October 2023 (estimated 40 days).
2 Mar 2022
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge lawfully exercised credibility determinations, properly admitted and found the oral statement to be voluntary, and reasonably concluded from witness evidence and CCTV that the appellant was the person apprehended in possession of offensive weapons; the discrepancies and timing gaps did not render the convictions unsafe and the prosecution retained the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt which was satisfied for the upheld counts.