The appellants were convicted of various weapons offences and crimes of violence related to the collection of drug debts.
They appealed their convictions on several grounds, primarily arguing that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding reasonable doubt, the segregation of evidence, the adequacy of the Vetrovec warning for unsavoury witnesses, and the position of the defence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no reversible errors in the jury charge.
However, the sentence appeals for three of the appellants were allowed, as the trial judge failed to adequately consider the principle of rehabilitation and mitigating factors, resulting in reduced sentences.
