2 Jun 2023
The Court accepted the complainant's recantation as credible after assessing trial evidence, contemporaneous records and the complainant's testimony; it granted extension of time, admitted fresh evidence from the complainant and appellant, concluded the conviction depended on the complainant's evidence and was unsafe, set aside the conviction and declined to order a retrial.
22 Feb 2023
Because the temporary protection order had lapsed, the statutory offences charged could not lawfully be committed; therefore the convictions were unsustainable and had to be quashed, and permission to appeal out of time was granted to correct the miscarriage of justice.
7 Nov 2022
The High Court found a miscarriage of justice in relation to the strangulation charge and quashed that conviction; because the Crown did not oppose the proposed disposition, the Court set aside the District Court sentence and, under s236(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, convicted and discharged the appellant on the remaining assault charge, thereby avoiding remittal to the District Court.
7 Dec 2020
Because the newly admitted facts showed the bonnet’s value at the time of receiving was below the $1,000 threshold, the appellant could not in law have been convicted of receiving stolen property over $1,000; accordingly the conviction was quashed and substituted under s 234 for the appropriately valued offence.
15 Jul 2020
The charge under s307 was incorrect because it concerns threats to property rather than threats to persons; the appellant could not be guilty of the offence charged, consent to substitute a correct conviction was not given, therefore the conviction under s307 was quashed and no further orders were made as the sentence had been served.
22 Sept 2005
The application for leave was refused because the grounds raised did not present any clear issue of law of general or public importance nor demonstrate that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred or will occur; accordingly the appellant failed to satisfy the Court that it was necessary in the interests of justice to grant leave under s13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.