28 Dec 2025
Material and irreconcilable contradictions in prosecution witnesses about the circumstances of the arrest and an incomplete investigation meant the prosecution failed to prove possession (knowledge, custody, control) beyond reasonable doubt; therefore no prima facie case and accused must be discharged and acquitted.
24 Dec 2025
The court held the prosecution proved all elements of forgery under s.468 read with s.463 and established common intention under s.34: P23 was fabricated by OKT2, authorised/endorsed by OKT1 with knowledge services were not supplied, payment was received and diverted, and attempts to manufacture supporting goods afterwards were concealment; conviction and sentence follow.
20 Feb 2025
Plaintiff failed to discharge the heavy onus of proving contempt beyond reasonable doubt because pleadings and affidavit lacked particulars of deliberate non‑compliance, plaintiff did not show which specific terms of the 25.2.2015 order were breached or whether PKP powers had been exercised, and plaintiff failed to establish the required penal notice endorsement and procedural compliance; accordingly committal could not be ordered.
15 Nov 2023
The appellant failed to prove bribery beyond reasonable doubt: he did not plead and call the specifically named recipients, failed to prove the alleged payor was the respondent's agent, the video evidence was inadmissible absent the maker, and the impugned aid-programmes were state‑approved statutory aids not shown to be corrupt inducements. Therefore the election was not nullified.
18 Aug 2023
The Respondent raised reasonable doubt on the Petitioner's allegations of contempt through contemporaneous records and credible explanations; the Petitioner failed to prove wilful disobedience beyond reasonable doubt and further failed to explain inordinate delay in commencing committal proceedings; accordingly the committal application was dismissed.
15 Aug 2023
Conviction unsafe and therefore quashed because the trial judge improperly placed decisive reliance on identification evidence from a kawad cam and in-court ID despite material inconsistencies between witnesses, inadequate scrutiny of how the identification was made, and absence of corroborating physical exhibits and laboratory evidence; the trial judge also failed properly to evaluate defence evidence, resulting in an unsafe verdict.
25 Jan 2023
The plaintiff failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant wilfully disobeyed the ad‑interim injunction: the defendant provided a credible explanation that the police report was made to secure assistance to recover her children pursuant to a Syariah Court interim custody order after prolonged parental alienation, creating reasonable doubt as to contumacious conduct; therefore committal could not be ordered.
2 Nov 2022
The 3rd Party failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st Defendant wilfully failed to comply with the 2019 Order; the court found the 1st Defendant had furnished an audited account and that delays and limitations were reasonably explained and excusable, therefore committal was not justified.
8 Sept 2022
The Court held the trial judge correctly found appellant had custody and control of the checked bag bearing tags and boarding pass in his name, was observed carrying it on CCTV, unlocked the secured bag, clothing with his DNA found inside, the drugs were concealed and present in a large quantity inconsistent with personal use; these facts supported an inference of knowledge and purpose to traffic, the innocent carrier defence failed, and the conviction under s39B(1)(a) DDA 1952 and death sentence were properly upheld.
15 Dec 2021
The Appellant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the Consent Order; the memorandum was internal and the Consent Order did not prohibit internal sharing; there was no evidence linking the leak on yesdig.com to the Respondent, therefore no contempt was established.