2 Nov 2023
Conviction quashed because the acquittal of a co-offender combined with material weaknesses and inconsistencies in the identification evidence (notably the unexplained absence of distinctive tattoos, discrepancies in eyewitness descriptions, and reliance on circumstantial CCTV timing) created a real risk of miscarriage of justice; discretion exercised to refuse a retrial in accordance with appellate authority.
30 Oct 2023
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court costs order because the discretion to award costs for an unsuccessful application for leave to appeal under s 8 requires something significantly out of the ordinary; the leave application here was not frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith, and the High Court erred by focusing on the merits of the underlying prosecution rather than the circumstances of the leave application; there was no basis to exceed the statutory scale.
7 Sept 2023
Although the judge did not give the s126(2) direction at the moment of the dock identifications, the brief and fleeting nature of the references, the clear in‑court instruction to the jury to put those dock identifications to one side, and the full s126 warning in the summing up together meant there was no material error or real risk of miscarriage; the conviction stands.
14 Aug 2023
The High Court found no miscarriage of justice: the trial judge was entitled to conclude identity was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the convergence of the children's immediate account to the mother and independent circumstantial evidence (delivery records, phone location data placing the appellant at the scene for around seven minutes, CCTV and vehicle features), and appellate intervention was not warranted.
9 Aug 2023
The appeal is dismissed because the High Court, on rehearing, found no error in the trial judge's credibility and identification findings; the nondisclosure of a handwritten statement and notebook entries did not create a real risk of an unfair trial or affect the outcome; and delay did not produce appreciable prejudice amounting to a miscarriage of justice, therefore the conviction is upheld.
3 May 2023
The Court held counsel did not err: the appellant was given reasonable, clear advice and made an informed voluntary election not to give evidence; counsel reasonably declined to advance an unsubstantiated 'George/Red' defence and had no basis to investigate it further; consenting to admission of the unavailable witness's written statement was reasonable and did not cause a miscarriage of justice given the strength of the Crown case; identification evidence and circumstantial evidence about imprisonment/deportation and items at the address were admissible and any prejudicial effect was address…
28 Apr 2023
The High Court held the trial Judge did not err: the combined direct identification by two experienced constables (distinctive facial tattoos, contemporaneous observation), corroborative circumstantial evidence (wallet, fingerprint in vehicle, later recognition by another constable, backpack coincidence) and expert lay recognition of the object by an experienced firearms officer justified the conclusions beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the offender and that the object was a firearm within the Arms Act definition; no real risk of miscarriage of justice under s232 was established.
25 Nov 2022
The recall application was declined because it improperly sought to relitigate settled issues on identical grounds previously dismissed; the conviction was supported by sufficient identification evidence and is final, and the application amounted to an abuse of process.
7 Sept 2022
The trial judge erred in the procedure and reasons given on the s 147 no‑case application by applying the wrong test and orally stating he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt before the defence had elected to give evidence; that error amounted to an irregularity creating a real risk the outcome was affected and thus a miscarriage of justice requiring the conviction and sentence to be set aside and a rehearing ordered.
10 Aug 2022
Appeal dismissed: (1) jury verdicts were explainable and not irrational given differences in timing and inconsistencies in complainant evidence; (2) B's identification was not shown to be unreliable and the s126 warning, while not verbatim, conveyed the required caution and was adequate in substance; (3) C's EVI satisfied s18 reliability criteria and the s122 warning given was sufficient in context; (4) the sentencing starting point fell within permissible range under R v AM and the final sentence of 11 years 4 months was not manifestly excessive.