Melissa Ragsdale

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that based on the trial judge's treatment of the complainant's credibility on other charges resulting in acquittals, the confirmatory evidence needed to implicate the appellant in the crime alleged.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and noting the appellant's concession that confirmatory evidence generally does not have to implicate the accused in the criminal aspect of the offences charged.

The appellant appealed his conviction for an offence involving pushing the complainant off a roof.

The trial judge had assessed credibility by comparing the evidence of the complainant and the accused on an either/or basis, and failed to consider whether the accepted evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found these to be errors, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held that the sentence, while stern, was not manifestly unreasonable.

Fresh evidence regarding the appellant's ongoing rehabilitation supported the wisdom of the trial judge's sentence.

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

The appellant appealed his sentence, acknowledging it was fit when imposed but seeking intervention based on fresh evidence regarding his medical condition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant could serve his sentence without any impairment to his medical condition and treatment.

The appellant, a young person, appealed his convictions for theft under $5,000 and assault with a weapon.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to reopen proceedings to hear fresh evidence, that the identification evidence for the assault charge was unreasonable, and that the trial judge erred on the issue of mens rea for the theft charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence lacked proof of truth of contents, the identification evidence was sufficient, and there was no evidence of colour of right for the theft.

The appellant installed a video surveillance camera facing his neighbour's backyard, recording 24 hours a day for over a month due to barking dogs.

He was charged with mischief for interfering with the lawful use and enjoyment of property.

He was acquitted at trial but convicted on summary conviction appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, finding that the continuous surveillance objectively and subjectively interfered with the neighbour's enjoyment of her property, and the appellant acted knowingly or recklessly.