13 May 2022
The High Court found the District Court's 42-month starting point excessive and preferred a 36-month starting point with a 3-month uplift for recent prior firearms offending, but held that the District Court's final sentence of 27 months fell within permissible judicial discretion and was not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.
19 Dec 2019
Majority held most Edmonds texts were not hearsay statements because they contained no assertions; the 8:57am Edmonds text was a hearsay statement but inadmissible because Edmonds had not been shown to be 'unavailable' absent being summonsed; exclusion of the Edmonds texts (other than the 8:57am message) did not create a real risk of a different verdict and the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
16 Nov 2017
The verdicts were not unreasonable because the totality of circumstantial evidence (location of drugs in premises occupied by the appellant, connection to earlier cannabis, equivocal answer about fingerprints, CCTV existence, seized cash) supported a finding beyond reasonable doubt of possession for supply and allowed an inference of joint possession; the Court will not interfere absent meeting the high threshold for unreasonableness.
11 May 2015
The jury's verdict was not unreasonable because, on the whole of the evidence, the jury could properly infer that the methamphetamine was in the appellant's bedroom under his mattress and that he had sole or joint actual or potential control (either having it before Waterman's arrival or jointly possessing it after Waterman brought it to decide what to do), and that concealment at the time of the search supported that inference; accordingly there was no miscarriage of justice and the appeal was dismissed.