9 May 2023
The judge recalled his earlier judgment to remove the entered conviction so as not to preclude the District Court from exercising its statutory sentencing discretion under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002, reissued the judgment with that deletion, and remitted the matter for sentencing.
31 Jul 2020
The High Court accepted the District Court transcript recording a guilty plea to the second s71 breach as establishing a valid conviction; accordingly the defendant was convicted and discharged on that offence and the Court could proceed despite the defendant's refusal to enter the courtroom because counsel had been present and had advised the defendant.
4 Dec 2019
The Court concluded there were sufficient grounds to allow the appeal on charges 13 and 14 and entered judgments of acquittal on those charges; it found no reversible error in respect of the remaining convictions and upheld the refusal to grant a discharge without conviction; the sentence was varied to six months' home detention and otherwise the post-detention conditions were retained.
29 Apr 2019
The application for a writ of habeas corpus is declined because the applicant is lawfully detained pursuant to valid convictions and sentence and habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure to challenge those convictions under s14 of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.
17 Apr 2018
Leave to appeal dismissed because the applicant's arguments merely repeated the Court of Appeal's arguments, raised no point of general or public importance and did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
17 Nov 2017
Leave to appeal against conviction was granted because the approved question (whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicant's appeal under s 195) justified further consideration by this Court; leave to appeal against sentence was declined because it did not raise an independent point of importance nor a risk of miscarriage.
12 Oct 2017
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and framed the approved question for determination as whether Mr Rowe should have been convicted.
12 May 2017
Leave to bring a second appeal was granted because the District Court judge plainly failed to apply the statutory criteria and provide reasons—specifically failing to account for the complainant's provocative conduct and the appellant's personal circumstances—which raised a real risk of miscarriage of justice such that further appellate consideration was warranted.
26 May 2015
Leave to appeal was granted to allow the Supreme Court to determine whether R v Antonievic was correctly decided and, if not, whether that error requires quashing the convictions; jurisdictional questions under s 383 need not be argued at this stage.
5 Mar 2015
The Court dismissed the application for leave and the appeal against conviction because the appeals lacked merit; the appellant had notice of the hearing, counsel had been permitted to withdraw for inability to obtain instructions, and there was no basis to grant leave or disturb the conviction.