The appellant appealed his fraud convictions, arguing the trial judge erred by finding it irrelevant that he did not act fraudulently in 18 other cases and by noting without evidence that this was a common pattern in fraud cases.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's comment on common practice was not relied upon and was common sense.
The court found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's intention in the 18 other cases did not speak to his intention in the 16 charged cases, as there was ample other evidence of mens rea.
