9 May 2018
The bail application was refused because the applicant failed to show that his grounds of appeal (no case to answer on subjective awareness and alleged unbalanced summing-up) were likely to succeed; the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient for the jury to infer the required elements and the alleged summing-up errors were not sufficiently prejudicial.
21 Jul 2014
The Court held the trial judge's summing up was fair and balanced, having properly warned the jury about identification pitfalls and directed them to consider competing evidence; the telephone records lacked probative value absent explanatory evidence and did not undermine the conviction; the judge correctly directed the jury on the right of silence; and the sentencing starting point of 9 years with a reduction to 8½ years was within the judge's lawful discretion and not manifestly excessive.
30 Oct 2009
The application was dismissed because, read in context, the impugned phrase was illustrative and did not mislead the jury; the judge had given clear and emphatic directions on burden and standard of proof and there was no realistic prospect of a miscarriage of justice.
30 Oct 2008
The Court held that informing the jury of the co-defendant's guilty plea did not prejudice the applicant and in fact assisted the defence; the absence of the exact specimen direction that the defendant should be acquitted if his account is or may be true was not a material omission because the judge's clear directions on burden and standard of proof and explicit statements that the jury must acquit if not sure adequately protected the applicant; the challenged comments were not impermissibly strong such as to cause injustice. Accordingly the appeal against conviction is dismissed.
24 Aug 2007
There was no proper evidential foundation to leave unlawful act manslaughter to the jury; the only viable alternative to murder on the evidence was manslaughter by reason of provocation and the judge's directions (including supplemental directions during deliberations) were appropriate and not unfair; therefore the application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
15 Aug 2006
The recorder correctly refused to leave the alternative verdict of simple possession because there was no evidence from which a jury could properly infer personal use; the evidence supported an inference of trafficking (applicant seen dropping/package contained methamphetamine of high street value and he disowned it), therefore leave to appeal was refused and the application dismissed.
5 May 2005
The judge properly directed the jury that murder required intention to kill or cause really serious injury, that such intention could only be inferred if death or serious injury was a virtual certainty and appreciated by the accused, and the judge's summing up and clarification in response to the jury's question made this clear; there was no misdirection or unfairness and the application to appeal was dismissed.
10 Feb 2004
The application to treat the abandonment of the leave to appeal as a nullity is dismissed because the court was not satisfied that the applicant lacked understanding of the effect of abandonment; additionally the trial judge's summing up was sound and there were no valid grounds of complaint.
26 Apr 2002
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to advance any arguable ground; the trial judge's directions on intent and provocation were balanced and fair and open to no valid criticism, so no retrial or reversal was justified.
19 Sept 2001
Leave to appeal was granted under the substantial and grave injustice limb only because it was reasonably arguable that evidence existed from which the jury might have drawn adverse inferences without being directed that such inferences must be the only reasonable ones, and that the judge failed to give a necessary cautionary note where the complainant's credibility was crucial; the point of law limb was rejected as the proposition was established law and raised no real controversy for the Court of Final Appeal.