11 Apr 2022
The trial judge's adverse credibility findings against the appellant were supported by the evidence; given the absence of any innocent explanation for the appellant's fingerprints on the stolen presentation box and deference owed to the trial judge on credibility, the conviction was properly maintained and no miscarriage of justice occurred; extension of time to file the notice of appeal was granted.
26 Mar 2021
The single thumbprint found on the inside of the instrument panel, together with the appellant's denials in the recorded interview and his proximity to the scene, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the burglary; the arrest was lawful and the DVD interview admissible; the proposed fresh expert affidavit was not fresh and would not affect the safety of the conviction; alleged counsel errors did not create a miscarriage of justice.
19 Nov 2019
Leave to appeal under s 215 was granted and the appeal allowed: because the loss of the note involved no bad faith, and because the original note would not probably have been of real benefit to the defence (could not explain the unexplained counter fingerprint, other-fingerprint theories could be advanced without the original, and handwriting analysis was not shown to require the original), exclusion was disproportionate and the fingerprint evidence is admissible.
19 Sept 2019
Although the Crown conceded delayed disclosure of additional fingerprint lifts, the late material was not shown to be materially prejudicial: the defence had already advanced and explored the plausible alternative explanations at trial, the additional lifts did not implicate the appellant and did not alter the central issue of whether he was involved; therefore no real risk of miscarriage of justice existed and conviction stands. On sentence, the trial judge's starting point was consistent with appellate guidance for dwelling burglaries and the uplift for prior convictions, while arguably ste…
8 Jun 2017
The application to adduce further evidence was refused because the proposed witness's affidavit failed to explain why her evidence could not, with reasonable diligence, have been called and the evidence was not cogent to rebut the Crown's fingerprint evidence; the proposed grounds of appeal lacked apparent merit; the sentence was within the available range and appropriately reflected totality, antecedents and plea discount, so leave to appeal and the appeal were dismissed/refused.