The appellants appealed their convictions and intermittent sentences.
They argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, failed to refer to character evidence, and that they required an interpreter.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding that even if evidence was misapprehended, the verdicts would inevitably have been the same due to cogent bystander evidence.
The court also found no merit in the character evidence and interpreter arguments.
The sentence appeals were dismissed as the intermittent sentences were not unreasonable.