17 Apr 2024
The appellant failed to demonstrate any question of law of general or public importance or any other exceptional reason to justify referral to the Court of Final Appeal; the complaints were factual disputes about the trial judge's findings and lacked a reasonable basis for leave, so the application was refused.
14 May 2020
Although the trial judge erred procedurally in excluding the defence expert from giving evidence as an expert on traffic reconstruction/vehicle behaviour, that error was harmless in the circumstances: the defence failed to identify material additional evidence the expert would have given that could have undermined the prosecution case, the physical evidence and Dr To's analysis overwhelmingly supported the finding that the appellant had crossed the centre line, and therefore the conviction was safe and must be upheld.
20 Sept 2017
The court held that the late-produced electronically generated electricity bills were the product of genuine oversight, were relevant, caused minimal or no prejudice to the plaintiffs, and that admitting them was within the proper exercise of the trial judge's discretion; consequently there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was refused.
28 Feb 2012
The trial judge did not err in refusing to discharge the jury because the witness's statement was speculative, made by an aggrieved relative and unsupported by evidence, and the judge gave immediate, clear and repeated directions including reference to the autopsy/toxicology report which removed any real prejudice; appellate court will not interfere with the trial judge's discretion absent clear miscarriage.
24 Dec 1996
The Court held the Deputy Judge did not misdirect the jury by compartmentalising the two alternative bases and repeatedly required the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on any basis relied upon; further, there was no prima facie case that jurors were so incapacitated as to warrant an inquiry or discharge, and the trial judge properly and lawfully exercised her discretion in refusing to hold an enquiry, so the application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.
19 May 1995
The court held that the contested parts of the witness statements offended the rules against hearsay, the plaintiffs had not shown any ground for admissibility or served a hearsay notice under r.2A(6), there was no justification to stand the matter over to the trial judge, and therefore the plaintiffs were ordered to amend the witness statements to remove the offending parts and costs were awarded to the defendants.
15 Jun 1990
Because the Court found the same vitiating error as in the co-defendant's successful appeal — the trial judge failed to consider available statements of absent witnesses and improperly exercised his discretion in continuing the trial — and because the Crown conceded the point applied to these applicants, the Court granted the extension of time, treated the hearing as the appeal, allowed the appeals and quashed the convictions and set aside the sentences.
4 Mar 1988
The trial judge properly conducted the voir dire, correctly found the applicant's evidence untruthful and the two statements voluntary, and there was no legal or factual basis to disturb that finding; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
30 Apr 1986
The judge's directions, though not perfectly worded, were legally sufficient and did not mislead the jury; there was no evidence on which a reasonable jury could find provocation sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter; the trial judge properly exercised discretion in admitting photographs and in refusing to discharge the jury; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and conviction stands.