30 Oct 2009
The application was dismissed because, read in context, the impugned phrase was illustrative and did not mislead the jury; the judge had given clear and emphatic directions on burden and standard of proof and there was no realistic prospect of a miscarriage of justice.
17 Jun 2008
Leave to appeal was granted because, considering what the recorder told the jury and omitted to tell them after a purported 4–3 majority verdict, there was a reasonably arguable departure from accepted norms concerning the jury's function and position that was sufficiently serious to constitute a substantial and grave injustice.
21 Nov 2006
The trial judge's board of directors analogy and related comments, taken together with the prolonged and unattended period of jury deliberation, constituted misdirection and created a real risk of impermissible pressure on jurors such that the first applicant's conviction was unsafe; the proviso was inapplicable and the conviction and sentence were quashed. The second applicant's sentence was within acceptable range given the quantity, international aspect and his role and his appeal against sentence was dismissed.
29 Mar 2006
The Court held that the trial judge materially misdirected the jury by telling them the applicant's mixed statement on arrest was 'just the defendant's reaction' and not evidence of truth; combined with inadequate summation of the defence case (failure to present the defence theory and evidence undermining the complainant's credibility), the misdirection could not be cured on the record and the proviso in s.83 CPO could not be safely applied. Consequently the conviction and sentence were quashed and a retrial ordered.
26 Apr 1984
The alleged errors did not render the convictions unsafe: the trial judge gave adequate warnings about accomplice evidence and corroboration, omissions identified were either unnecessary, harmless or would not have assisted the applicant, and no impropriety from the unreported chambers meeting was shown. Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused and sentences affirmed.
15 Jul 1980
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err: he properly found the cautioned statements voluntary; his directions on beyond reasonable doubt, cautioned statements, joint enterprise and the effect of an accused giving evidence were adequate in context; prosecutor's opening remark was not prejudicial and objections taken late were untimely; accordingly the convictions were safe and the appeals were dismissed.
28 Apr 1972
The trial judge had no power to take the jury's majority verdict absent 'reasonable consultation' under s.24(1); approximately 25 minutes' deliberation on a complex three‑week trial was inadequate as a matter of law, rendering the verdict voidable; given the evidence and appellate review, the court was justified in entering judgment for the appellants on prayers 2 and 3 rather than ordering a new trial.