14 Apr 2022
Extension of time to seek leave was granted for a minor five-day delay; leave to appeal was refused because the alleged counsel error was narrow, the trial Judge's careful directions adequately mitigated any real risk of miscarriage, and the proposed appeal did not raise a matter of principle nor had sufficient prospects of success.
20 Aug 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal had properly considered the challenged demeanour directions and the prejudicial material, concluded no miscarriage of justice resulted, and there was no real risk of miscarriage or issue of public importance to justify leave; therefore the applicant's grounds did not meet the statutory threshold for grant of leave.
20 Apr 2018
Extensions of time to appeal were granted; trial judge's directions on demeanour were adequate and not prejudicial; representative counts were properly handled because the judge required unanimity as to a specific incident/location and correctly answered jury queries; the proposed 'fresh evidence' was not fresh nor undermining and did not render convictions unsafe; juror familiarity procedure was flawed in part but produced no miscarriage of justice given the routine nature of the witness evidence and counsel's position; challenged prejudicial material did not produce a miscarriage of justice…
21 Nov 2017
The appeal is dismissed: the missing banking bag did not render the conviction unsafe because independent evidence linked it to the victim; the Judge's initial misstatement was corrected and caused no real risk of prejudice; the EFTPOS evidence, although wrongly admitted, was harmless in the context of compelling other evidence; verdicts were explainable on a charge-by-charge basis; the sentence of two years and four months' imprisonment was within range and not manifestly excessive.
15 Feb 2006
No miscarriage of justice occurred because the challenged disclosures were directly responsive to defence cross-examination, were of limited additional prejudicial effect in the context (prior imprisonment and lifestyle were already apparent), and any illegitimate prejudice was effectively cured by a clear and firm jury direction; therefore the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial and the convictions stand.
22 Sept 2005
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the prejudicial evidence of the first complainant did not result in a miscarriage of justice; no final determination on the substantive issue was made.