21 Jan 2026
The trial judge erred by relying on the appellant’s ambiguous WhatsApp apology (P1(14)) as a clear admission while having rejected the complainant’s evidence; read in context the message did not amount to an unequivocal admission of a touching constituting the charged offence, and therefore there was no proper basis to withhold costs under Cap.492 s.3 — appeal allowed and costs awarded.
22 Apr 2022
The court found no conduct by the appellant that was sufficiently connected to the charged offence to constitute self‑exposure or to have misled the prosecution; the conviction was quashed on merits (not merely technical); accordingly the appellant was entitled to recover the costs of the original trial and the appeal, with any dispute as to amount to be assessed by the taxing officer.
7 Nov 2014
The court upheld the magistrate's exercise of discretion refusing costs because, on the evidence (forceful striking of the victim's car window and repeated profanities while the victim was inside), the appellant's conduct could reasonably cause alarm and constituted self‑suspicion related to the charge; despite a procedural shortcoming at the magistrates' hearing the appellate court, on rehearing, found the refusal of costs justified and dismissed the appeal.