12 Dec 2022
The trial judge's acceptance of prosecution witnesses and rejection of the appellant's inconsistent explanation was reasonable and supported by CCTV and photographs (including visible anti‑theft gates); on that factual basis the only reasonable inference was that the appellant knowingly left the supermarket with unpaid goods, constituting theft, therefore the conviction is safe.
28 Jan 2021
The evidence did not permit the court to infer, as the only reasonable conclusion, that the appellant knew of and had consented to the worker's employment; the trial judge made unsafe factual findings about visibility and witness certainty and failed to exclude reasonable alternative inferences, so the conviction was unsafe and must be quashed.
31 Dec 2012
The trial judge accepted the complainants' credible testimony that the appellant intentionally and repeatedly touched breasts, waist/back and thighs; applying the objective test of indecency and having found the appellant's explanations implausible, the judge's factual conclusions were lawful and not disturbed on appeal, so convictions were upheld.
4 May 2012
Conviction was unsafe because the proven facts (registered ownership, last driver, nervousness and a brief oral remark) were too weak and compatible with innocent explanations, and the package was concealed such that the only reasonable inference of knowledge by the appellant could not be drawn; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
13 Dec 1996
The appeal was allowed because the trial judge, despite recognizing the victim's intoxication, failed to acknowledge and explain preferring one of three inconsistent versions of crucial events; that failure rendered the conviction unsafe and required quashing.
20 Sept 1989
The magistrate accepted the store detective's evidence and the appellant's evasive demeanour and, viewing the conduct and exit routes together, found that the only reasonable inference was that the appellant handed the lipstick to her daughter intending it not to be paid for; alternative explanations were remote and did not create a reasonable doubt, so the conviction stands.