20 Oct 2017
The convictions were quashed because the trial judge made essential factual findings (that the complainant's penis was erect and that penetration occurred) that were contrary to the complainant's clear evidence and expert opinion, and failed adequately to address the anatomical improbabilities and defence issues; those errors undermined the safety of the convictions.
10 Aug 2005
The Court refused certification because the questions raised were applications of well-established legal principles and not points of law of great and general importance; the expert evidence point did not justify certification because the outcome was inevitable; claims of substantial and grave injustice must be pursued by leave to the Court of Final Appeal, not by certification from this Court.
13 Oct 2004
The guilty verdicts for the 2nd and 3rd charges were quashed because the clerk failed to elicit from the foreman whether those guilty verdicts were unanimous or, if not, by what numerical majority they were reached, creating an ambiguity that vitiates the verdicts; the 1st charge conviction was upheld under the proviso after the applicant admitted possession of all drugs in the particulars of that charge; extension of time and leave to appeal were properly dealt with as set out.