23 Mar 2020
Appeal dismissed because the alleged informant link was directly put to a police officer at trial and denied, the trial judge had reviewed unredacted warrant material and concluded reasonable grounds existed for the warrant, and the jury's rejection of the appellant's explanation was reasonably open on the evidence.
18 Dec 2019
There was no error in the District Court's conclusion that neither change of counsel nor receipt of the Deloitte report constituted a fundamental change in circumstances under s51(2) CPA or a proximate link to the election decision; accordingly no question of law arose and the District Court's refusal to grant leave to change the election was upheld.
15 Jul 2019
Leave was granted under s 53(2)(b) because the court was satisfied withdrawal of the election was unlikely to cause a delay in the trial being concluded; the trial will proceed by judge alone that day.
7 Dec 2017
Dai: Delegation to counsel to exercise peremptory challenges is lawful and common practice; however the right remains personal to the defendant and counsel must advise about the defendant's residual entitlement and, where appropriate, an agreed communication mechanism; on these facts counsel's omissions did not cause a miscarriage. Liu: Trial judge erred by omitting a direction on purpose for the attempted possession charge but the omission was harmless because purpose was not in issue and was established by the evidence; conviction stands.
16 Sept 2008
The Court refused the stay because it avoided rendering the appeal nugatory by promptly listing the appeal, the appellant absented himself and failed to take the High Court's opportunity to avoid committal, and his conduct did not justify granting a stay as an indulgence.
21 Nov 2007
Special leave under s 26P(1AA) is warranted where an appeal raises issues of principle of sufficient importance — the proposed appeal concerning the constitutional right to jury trial met that threshold — and an adequate explanation for late filing justifies granting leave out of time; the court did not decide the correctness of the underlying s 19A(5) decision.