Peter Lindsay

The appellants sought a new trial, alleging errors in the trial judge's reasons in a fraudulent misrepresentation action arising from a land purchase.

The court held there was ample evidence supporting each alternative basis on which the trial judge relied and that it was open to the trial judge to conclude the appellants failed to prove fraudulent representations.

The appellate court found no palpable and overriding error in the treatment of the evidence, including evidence concerning land value and the alleged representation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs on a solicitor and client basis.

The appellant appealed convictions for indecent assault and sexual assault arising from allegations by two complainants in a blended family context.

He argued the trial judge erred by refusing an offence-based challenge for cause, declining to sever counts involving different complainants, inadequately instructing the jury on the use of evidence across counts, and refusing a missing witness adverse inference instruction.

The court held that the challenge for cause issue was governed by existing authority, that severance was properly refused given the factual nexus surrounding disclosure during a custody dispute, that the charge sufficiently guarded against propensity reasoning, and that the trial judge properly exercised discretion on the missing witness issue.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and improperly imposed a duty on him to stop his co-accused.

The court held there was ample evidence supporting the convictions and interpreted the trial reasons as finding a joint venture and the requisite intent when the co-accused armed himself.

The appeal was dismissed.