23 Sept 2022
Applicant failed to provide satisfactory contemporaneous medical evidence to explain the substantial delay and failed to demonstrate any arguable error in the Leave Decision; because the intended appeal had no real prospect of success extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.
10 Feb 2021
The judge correctly refused leave because there was no error of law, procedural impropriety or irrationality in the Board's factual credibility and risk assessments and the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success; the Court of Appeal found no basis to disturb that decision and dismissed the appeal.
2 Jun 2017
The magistrate's credibility and factual findings were rational and supported by the evidence; she did not base conviction on a 'not proven' principle but on the sole reasonable inference available from the uncontradicted evidence that the appellant's driving fell below the standard of a careful driver; the appellant's decision not to give evidence or call witnesses justified drawing an adverse inference; conviction was therefore safe and is affirmed.
19 Sept 2007
The magistrate's acceptance of the victim's evidence was entitled to deference because the inconsistencies with PW2 and PW3 were not material, the magistrate rejected the appellant's account as not credible, and the touching in the second incident (crown of head down to waist including contact with brassiere strap over clothing) would be regarded by right‑minded people as indecent and was intended by the appellant; accordingly the convictions were upheld.
20 Jul 2007
On the whole of the evidence, including contemporaneous correspondence and the Defendant's 2003 inquiry of AIG, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that an oral agreement was concluded for payment of a 2% placement fee for assistance in securing AIG's US$25,000,000 investment and that the Plaintiff performed by actively assisting (including written submissions to AIG); appellate deference to the trial judge's factual findings was warranted.
15 Nov 1996
The magistrate lawfully assessed the medical evidence and credibility, concluded the complainant was a truthful and reliable witness despite SLE and steroid treatment, did not impermissibly shift the burden, and was entitled to reject the appellant's and defence evidence; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal must be dismissed.