28 Jun 2017
Leave to appeal was refused because there were no reasonably arguable grounds: the trial judge's findings that the applicant was in premises without right, in possession of house‑breaking tools and stolen items and that he made an unequivocal admission were well supported and not plainly wrong; the sentence of 2 years was within the range of authority and not manifestly excessive.
22 Jun 2010
The appellate court upheld the magistrate's conviction because the ring was found concealed in the lining of the appellant's jacket which she exclusively used, her account that she had returned the ring was not trusted, and there was no reasonable explanation or credible evidence of a frame-up; these facts established theft beyond reasonable doubt.
29 Mar 2007
Given the appellant's unexplained possession of PW1's ATM card and PW4's pearls, supported identification evidence and the appellant's election not to give evidence, the magistrate legitimately drew adverse inferences from the circumstantial evidence; the findings were open on the evidence and the conviction was therefore safe and must be affirmed.
4 Apr 2006
The trial judge was entitled to reject the co-accused's exculpatory evidence; possession of the victim's property shortly after the robbery together with matching appearance justified an inference that the applicant was one of the robbers; absence of DNA/fingerprint evidence did not render the conviction unsafe; the sentence and the limited consecutive term were not manifestly excessive.
26 Aug 2004
The Magistrate was entitled to prefer the prosecution witnesses, rejected the appellant's account as against logic and commonsense, relied on the discovery of stolen items on the appellant minutes after the theft and on evidence that intoxication did not impair the appellant, and therefore the conviction was upheld.
11 Sept 2002
Leave to renew the appeal was refused and the appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed because the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt by evidence that he was an illegal immigrant found in recent possession of a large amount of distinctive property stolen in recent burglaries, the trial judge properly rejected the appellant's exculpatory account, and the appellant's choice not to testify was his own; the sentences were within appropriate judicial discretion and therefore upheld.
8 Dec 1998
The magistrate's sentences were within the normal sentencing range and not manifestly excessive; the appellant's family circumstances, known at the time of offending, did not justify reducing the sentence; appeal dismissed.
17 Mar 1998
The Court held the trial judge was entitled to reject the applicant's explanations, to apply the doctrine of recent possession given the defendant was found with the stolen watch two days after the burglary, and to treat deliberate lies as supporting an inference of guilt; accordingly the conviction was safe and leave to appeal was refused.
7 Jan 1998
Given the applicant's admissions and recovery of property from a handbag in his possession shortly after the burglaries, the only reasonable inference was that he committed the burglaries; allegations of improper interpreter use and judicial bias were unsubstantiated, and therefore the application for leave to appeal out of time was refused as the appeal lacked merit.
10 Apr 1997
The conviction was upheld because eyewitness identifications made during and after hot pursuit, the dropping of bags containing stolen property, and the discovery of the victim's identity card on the appellant together provided overwhelming and conclusive evidence of guilt; the sentences imposed fell within the proper sentencing range and no mitigating factors justified appellate reduction.