13 Apr 2022
Because the original s124 Crimes Act charge required Attorney-General's consent which was not obtained, the prosecution lacked jurisdiction and the subsequent amendment substituting a different offence under a different Act was invalid; accordingly a miscarriage of justice occurred and the conviction and reparation order were quashed.
22 Dec 2020
The conviction was unsafe and was quashed because the trial judge materially erred by overlooking that the appellant lacked present ability to carry out the alleged running‑over threat (due to vehicle orientation/direction of travel), and that error undermined the necessary inference that the appellant intended his words to be taken seriously as a threat to intimidate or to frighten the complainant; consequently the conviction could not stand and an acquittal was entered.
3 Apr 2020
Driving the wrong way down SH1 does not constitute "interfering with" the physical highway itself under s270(1)(a); Judge Hastings was therefore correct to hold the charge could not stand as laid and to allow amendment to reckless driving. However, the same conduct can constitute interference with other vehicles (and their occupants) and thus may fall within s270(1)(a) or (b) if the charged property is properly identified as other vehicles rather than the highway.
5 Apr 2019
The Court refused leave because the Court of Appeal correctly concluded the charging document, while defective for omitting particulars, was not a nullity and s 379 saved the defect: the summary of facts served on 1 December 2015 supplied sufficient particulars so no miscarriage of justice was shown, and a stay was not warranted given absence of bad faith and the public interest in bringing accused to trial.
13 Mar 2019
There was sufficient evidence from which a properly directed jury could reasonably conclude that Ms Doyle moved and concealed the vehicle knowing and intending that she was assisting persons who had seriously injured Mr Harris, and that she knew of his death when she placed the keys in the letterbox; therefore the discharge application under s147 must be dismissed and the matter proceed to trial.