2 Feb 2009
The trial judge materially omitted to address a central disputed fact—existence and mutual belief in a US$200,000 debt despite the Liability Disclaimer acknowledging no refunds—so the conviction was unsafe; additionally the basis for inferring guilty knowledge from alleged evasion lacked satisfactory evidential support, warranting allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction.
3 Jul 1998
The court refused to certify because the issue did not involve a point of great and general importance: the Court of Appeal had not misapprehended the law but arguably misapplied it to the facts, and under established authority (Kwan Ping-pong) a misdirection as to onus rarely justifies applying the proviso to s.83(1).
28 Nov 1973
Although the judge erred in one passage by suggesting there was some evidence that either appellant struck the fatal blows, that error did not produce a substantial miscarriage of justice given the prosecution case was presented on the basis of common intention and the summing-up as a whole adequately left the defence to the jury; therefore the appeals are dismissed and convictions upheld.