6 May 2016
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's acceptance of prosecution evidence and inference from recent possession were properly reached; the absence of CCTV/fingerprint/DNA did not render the trial unfair or the conviction unsafe; and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
7 Jun 2013
The judge properly found the applicant in possession of recently stolen goods, rejected his explanation, and drew the irresistible inference of burglary; CCTV was not used to identify the applicant; the proprietor's identification of property was credible; given the applicant's extensive prior convictions the sentencing starting point was correctly enhanced; therefore both applications for leave were refused.
20 Sept 2012
The conviction was safe: the trial judge permissibly drew an irresistible inference of participation in the robbery from the totality of circumstantial evidence—recent possession of the stolen phone, proximity to the stolen bag, presence with an identified robber close in time and place to the offence, and the applicant's false account; the recent possession principle was applied as an inferential tool alongside other evidence, and the sentence of 5 years 6 months was within the appropriate guideline range.
18 Jul 2012
The court held that the evidence overwhelmingly established the appellant was a handler (a professional fence) rather than the thief so the trial judge was not obliged to consider the alternative that the appellant was the thief; leave to appeal conviction was dismissed. On sentence the court found the judge's starting point inadequate given aggravating features, allowed the Secretary for Justice's s81A review, quashed the original sentences and substituted a harsher sentence (5 years per count with an aggregate effect resulting in 5 years 6 months total).
11 May 2005
The conviction was quashed because the trial judge materially misstated and misunderstood key aspects of the appellant's account and the sequence of events relied upon, thereby rendering the application of the doctrine of recent possession and the verdict unsafe; the mischaracterisations undermined the reliability of the inference of guilty knowledge and made the conviction unsafe.
13 Aug 2004
Counsel's conduct and advice were reasonable in all the circumstances; there was no demonstration of gross negligence or flagrant incompetence and no miscarriage of justice because the cautioned statement had little realistic prospect of exclusion and independent evidence (accomplice testimony and recent possession) supported the convictions; therefore leave to appeal was dismissed and convictions upheld.
23 Jul 2004
Convictions were safe because recent possession of multiple and heterogeneous stolen items together with stolen receipts, very recent timing of the burglaries, the applicant's conduct at arrest, and rejection of the applicant's explanation justified the only reasonable inference of guilt; the overall sentence of five years was not contrary to principle or manifestly excessive given the applicant's prior convictions and circumstances.
16 May 2003
Although the appellant was found in recent possession of three credit cards and an identity card shortly after a clearly defined burglary, the surrounding facts (no evidence of forced entry, possibility of insider access, absence of other stolen items in appellant's possession and the general feel of the case) produced a lurking doubt that she was the actual burglar; however the evidence established dishonest use of stolen cards so, under s.32 Cap.210, the Court quashed the burglary conviction and substituted a conviction for handling stolen goods and imposed a substituted sentence consistent…
17 Jan 2001
Appeal allowed and conviction set aside because the deputy magistrate relied on factual findings that were mistaken (including mistranslated interview evidence) and failed to address the crucial mens rea element; the conviction based on an 'irresistible inference' was therefore unsafe.
27 Oct 1999
The Court held the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing severance; the evidence supported an irresistible inference that all 136 motorcycles were stolen and that the applicant knew or believed they were stolen; the doctrine of recent possession properly applies to second‑limb handling (assisting) per R v Ball and Winning; Exhibit P18 was a true copy of the manifest; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and convictions and concurrent two‑year sentences were upheld.