Mangesh Duggal

The appellant appealed his two convictions for assault and his sentence of fourteen months less four months credit for pre-trial custody.

He argued the trial judge failed to consider relevant evidence regarding credibility and failed to give adequate reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge did not ignore material evidence and provided adequate reasons.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction from the Youth Justice Court, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended his evidence and the evidence of his co-accused.

The appellant contended the trial judge erred in finding he did not testify to asking the complainant if she was 'okay' during the sexual activity, and misstated who removed the complainant's pants.

The Court of Appeal found no material misapprehension of evidence that would warrant appellate intervention.

The trial judge's minor misstatement of fact was deemed irrelevant to the overall credibility assessment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable due to problems with eyewitness identification procedures and inconsistencies in the description of the getaway car.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and that the verdict was supported by a formidable circumstantial case, including the appellant's association with a car closely matching the getaway car.

The appellant appealed her conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the one-page judgment insufficient for a serious charge resulting in a 15-month sentence.

The trial judge failed to adequately explain why he disbelieved the appellant, contrary to the requirements in R. v. Sheppard, and failed to address relevant evidence.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed.

Given the frail Crown case and that the sentence had been fully served, the Court stayed the charge rather than ordering a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for the attempted murder of his daughter, arguing that the Crown's opening address was improper.

He submitted that the opening did not faithfully describe the evidence and improperly referenced cultural considerations, encouraging the jury to rely on negative stereotypes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the variation between the opening and the evidence was minor and the comments regarding cultural considerations were not improper.

The appellant appealed her sentence for aggravated assault, arguing it exceeded the range suggested by Crown counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the reformatory sentence and three years' probation to be fit and balanced.

The court noted the gravity of the crime and the appellant's lengthy record for violent offences, while also recognizing her remorse and efforts to overcome drug and alcohol problems.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held that the sentence was not manifestly unfit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.