9 Dec 2019
The Court held the jury's verdict was not unreasonable because the complainant gave clear, cogent evidence of the Panmure rape that was not shaken in cross-examination; the trial judge provided thorough directions on memory and credibility; weaknesses and inconsistencies were explored and were matters for the jury; there was no proper basis for the appellate court to usurp the factfinder.
7 May 2019
Juror statements that they felt "uncomfortable" at defence counsel's manner of looking at them did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice; the trial judge's inquiry and directions were sufficient to safeguard a fair trial and it was not 'highly expedient' under Juries Act s 22 to discharge the jury; the appellant's sentence was within the appropriate starting point range and not so disparate as to require adjustment.
23 Sept 2016
The judge refused to give a s122(1) caution because the defence had not challenged the truth of the complainants' accounts in cross-examination, the primary issue for the jury was what physical contact occurred (a matter for the complainants' direct evidence), evidential interviews focused on recounting events rather than views and contained no signs of reconstruction, mothers' evidence supported timing that reduced risk of contamination, and on balance the risk of unreliability was not so great as to require a caution; giving one would be unfair to the Crown and the complainants.
12 Jun 2013
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the propensity evidence was properly admissible to show a propensity to grab the wheel relevant to whether the applicant caused the collision irrespective of whether it proved recklessness, and the new expert evidence would not probably have produced a different verdict nor demonstrated a substantial miscarriage of justice.
8 Feb 2011
Leave to appeal was granted only on two specified grounds concerning the admissibility of the evidence that the child was left in the car on 19 December 2007 and the adequacy of the trial judge's directions on that evidence; other proposed grounds were refused because the expert opinions were speculative or lacked a factual basis and the proposed fresh evidence was not credible or timely.
22 May 2007
Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge properly controlled admission of prior complaints, gave sufficient directions on credibility, correctly excluded an unqualified expert observation, the omission of character evidence was a defensible tactical choice and did not amount to incompetence or miscarriage of justice, the indictment was adequate, and the case raised no matter of public importance or appearance of miscarriage of justice.