The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, holding that cross-examination asking the appellant whether another witness had lied did not contravene R v [name withheld] principles in the circumstances, that the trial judge was not obliged to give an unrequested direction regarding evidence of methylamphetamine use, and that the trial judge did not err in declining to direct on intoxication where trial counsel had agreed it was not in issue and the evidence did not support an alternative verdict of grievous bodily harm simpliciter. On sentence, the Court granted leave to appeal, set aside the serious violent offender declaration, and re-sentenced the appellant to nine years' imprisonment, finding the declaration rendered the sentence manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.