5 Dec 2013
The non-disclosure of the expert's minor prior speeding conviction did not materially affect his credibility or the reliability of the radar evidence and did not undermine the magistrate's finding that the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction stands.
21 May 2008
The trial Magistrate accepted the prosecution eyewitness testimony that the unlit vessel was heading northeast, attempted to escape, and when boarded contained a large quantity of unmanifested cargo; those findings supported the legitimate inference that the Appellants were attempting to export unmanifested goods and the appellate court found no material error or irregularity in those factual findings and dismissed the appeal.
7 Jun 1996
The magistrate correctly admitted and relied on the officer's testimony as non‑expert; the registration was properly identified via in‑court magnifying glass examination and corroborated by another witness; the overlay was part of certified equipment tested near the offence date and the officer's training provided independent support; identity was confirmed by licence and Transport Department records; and the presence of a notice outside the courtroom did not deny a public hearing — accordingly the appeal against conviction is dismissed.
9 Jan 1987
The magistrate's failure to address the defence contention that the radar may have recorded another vehicle, and the absence of clarification as to identification, rendered the conviction unsafe and required it to be quashed.