7 Nov 2025
The application for a s32 certificate was refused because the proposed points were re-argued factual or procedural issues that had been dealt with at trial and on appeal and did not amount to points of law of great and general importance; the Applicant had access to and used prosecution materials, and no novel legal question suitable for certification was established.
31 Dec 2021
Prosecution did not act improperly in declining to call Hoque; the s65B statement was introduced by agreement and as a defence tactical tool; defence counsel elected not to require the maker’s attendance or cross-examine; any limited misdirection concerning the s65B statement did not occasion a miscarriage of justice and the verdict is safe, so the appeal is dismissed (conviction and sentence affirmed).
9 Oct 2020
Bail pending appeal was refused because, even assuming the merits threshold was met, the time factor was not decisive, the appellant bore responsibility for delay, and the risk of absconding was not sufficiently eliminated by the offered sureties and consequences of absconding; a retrial was likely if appeal succeeded and the application did not justify exceptional grant of bail.
1 Aug 2019
The judge correctly assessed the facts and legal principles: there was no realistic basis to conclude the oral admission was induced by oppression beyond those matters already addressed; the judge gave appropriate Mushtaq directions where required in relation to the notebook entry and the video interview; directions regarding refusal to answer and the evidential status of statements under s65B were adequate; the grounds lacked merit and leave to appeal was refused.
10 Jan 2018
The judge erred in allowing the jury to infer that the applicant authored the notebook entries and phone photographs and in permitting those records to be used as proof against the applicant of actual drug trafficking when there was insufficient evidence (no fingerprints or handwriting link) to justify that inference; the records could only be used, if at all, as circumstantial evidence of possession of records characteristic of trafficking and with limiting directions; the misdirection created a real danger of wrongful inference and requires quashing the conviction.
3 Dec 2004
The magistrate addressed the material discrepancies, applied appropriate directions on credibility, reasonably resolved minor inconsistencies (including the s65B medical report), and the accepted evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
11 May 2004
The Court concluded the District Court judge erred in law by treating the out-of-jurisdiction witness statement as inadmissible without any section 65B objection having been served; because admissibility was not finally excluded the suggestion that a fair trial was impossible was premature and a permanent stay was not justified on that basis; the appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the applicant, while the court declined to interfere with the lower judge's exercise of discretion as to costs below.
18 Feb 2003
The appeal was allowed because a material irregularity occurred: the appellant was effectively compelled to accept the prosecution expert's statement read under section 65B because the magistrate remanded him in custody for the adjournment period. That coercion undermined the fairness of the trial; the expert should have been called and, therefore, the conviction and sentence were quashed and a retrial ordered.
7 May 1999
The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate's findings were rational and supported by the evidence; defence counsel's tactical omissions did not amount to flagrant incompetence or cause a miscarriage of justice; PW2's qualifications and the medical report provided sufficient basis for the medical findings and the discrepancies in PW1's statements were immaterial to the verdict.
16 Feb 1996
The conviction was unsafe because the Crown failed to adduce admissible evidence establishing that parts of the watch were fake and failed to establish the necessary foundation for the expert opinion (Mr Chiu); in the absence of such proof the Magistrate could not be sure of the appellant's guilt and the conviction must be quashed.