19 May 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the challenge amounted to a dispute about factual findings on reliability of phone data already addressed at trial and on appeal, the appellant did not show a real risk of miscarriage caused by forensic handling, and the public‑importance argument about forensic standards was not material to this case.
12 Dec 2019
Although police handling involved departures from best practice and synchronisation events occurred, the Court found no adequate basis to conclude the contested YouTube and browser entries were generated or altered by police action or synchronisation to the extent of making them unreliable; expert evidence and contextual corroboration supported attribution to the appellant at the relevant times, so the contested evidence remained admissible and the appeal failed.
3 Sept 2018
The warrant lawfully authorised seizure and retention of the phone and authorised later examinations; synchronised data present on the phone before seizure was properly within the scope of the warrant; police handling and the inadvertent creation of cookies or a synchronisation event did not establish that the data was rendered unreliable on the material before the Court; the defence did not challenge admissibility pre-trial and the evidence was probative and not unfairly prejudicial, therefore the convictions stand.