Le v Feakes

In the case of Le v Feakes, the appellant, Mr Le, appealed against his conviction for possession of cash reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the primary judge had correctly applied the law in convicting Mr Le. The appellant contended that the magistrate had failed to address the element of reasonable suspicion in the context of the charge against him. Additionally, Mr Le argued that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence presented at the trial.

The court considered whether the magistrate had adequately considered the element of reasonable suspicion in convicting Mr Le. The court noted that the primary judge had addressed the evidence and concluded that the appellant's possession of cash was reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained. The court held that the primary judge had correctly applied the law and was not required to address each element of the charge separately. Furthermore, the court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that Mr Le's possession of cash was reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained, and therefore the verdict was neither unreasonable nor unsupported by the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The court found that the primary judge had correctly applied the law and adequately considered the evidence in convicting Mr Le. The court held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant's possession of cash was reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction remained in place.