11 May 2005
The appeal was allowed because the magistrate's statement failed to refer to and give reasons for rejecting material defence evidence (witness Sham) that, if accepted, would have undermined the prosecution case; that omission rendered the conviction unsafe and required quashing and refund of the fine.
15 Oct 1976
The conviction was unsafe because there was no independent corroboration of the accomplice's evidence on the vital issue of the appellant's knowledge that the suitcase was stolen, and the magistrate erred in treating the appellant's denial or failure to mention contents as corroboration; therefore the conviction must be quashed.
13 Oct 1976
Because the appellant presented a credible allegation that he pleaded guilty under duress and the Crown did not oppose the appeal, the conviction was set aside, the matter remitted for retrial before another magistrate, and the fine of $60 paid by the appellant was ordered remitted.