2 May 2025
On rehearing the judge could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant deliberately assaulted PW1; the Magistrate's reasons for rejecting the Appellant's account were not convincing in light of the evidence and cumulative inconsistencies affecting PW1's credibility; therefore conviction could not stand and was quashed; no retrial ordered.
15 Oct 2019
Because the appellate court concluded the learned magistrate had misweighed the defence evidence so that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction on retrial, the application for a retrial was refused and costs were awarded to the appellant.
28 Jun 2018
The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed because the magistrate made material errors of reasoning: he described the defence account as "impossible" (a summary rejection rather than proper evaluation) and treated an uncharged allegation of using the identity card as supporting guilt, thereby rendering the conviction unsafe. Retrial was refused and costs were awarded to the appellant.
2 Sept 2016
On balancing the relevant factors (seriousness, strength and clarity of evidence, delay, prejudice to the appellant, prior detention and mitigation) the court concluded there was not a reasonable prospect of conviction and that ordering a retrial would not be in the public interest; accordingly the prosecution's application for a retrial was refused and the earlier quashing of conviction and sentence stands.
29 Mar 2012
The conviction was quashed to allow the appellant its day in court because of defects in the notice and procedural delay; however the application for retrial was refused because, taking into account the lengthy delay and that the underlying conduct is now time-barred, a retrial would not be in the public interest.
24 Nov 2009
Counsel initiated and pursued a virtually destinated-to-fail identification challenge and advised the applicants not to cross-examine the principal prosecution witness; that tactical choice amounted to flagrant incompetence because it materially undermined the fairness of the trial and deprived the applicants of the opportunity to test the main witness, rendering the conviction on the conspiracy charge unsafe and justifying quashing the conviction and refusing a retrial in the circumstances.
19 Apr 2005
The convictions were quashed because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the copyright owners had not consented to the making of the copies; the evidence that Shogakukan had exclusive authority was insufficient and the section 121 affirmation was inadmissible for non-compliance with statutory requirements, and therefore a retrial was refused because the defendants ought to have been acquitted on the evidence before the trial judge.
8 Oct 1980
Appeal allowed and conviction quashed because the magistrate's misdirections rendered the conviction unsafe; key evidence did not show drugs in the syringe and the s48 presumptions could have been rebutted, therefore a retrial was refused.