10 Jul 2023
On the balance of probabilities the judge found the appellant did instruct the duty solicitor to plead guilty, the duty solicitor acted in accordance with his normal careful practice and would not have entered a guilty plea without clear instructions, there was no miscarriage of justice, and the unexplained delay in seeking leave meant leave was not granted.
21 Apr 2020
Extension of time was granted but leave for a second appeal was refused because the proposed appeal does not raise a question of general or public importance and there is no real risk of miscarriage of justice: the District Court and High Court carefully assessed the evidence, including CCTV, made permissible inferences about intent, and no arguable legal error or basis for interference by this Court was identified.
14 Feb 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the disparity in sentences did not render the appellant's sentence manifestly excessive; objective differences (the appellant's initiating role, greater culpability and significant prior convictions versus the co-offender's youth, lesser role and lack of adult record) provided a rational explanation for the heavier fine, so intervention was not justified.
22 Jun 2016
A conviction under s 4(1)(a) requires that the offensive behaviour was observed and that it actually disrupted public order; where there is no evidence of observation or actual disturbance, the elements of the offence are not established and conviction must be quashed.