15 Sept 2023
The application to recall the Court's 2015 judgment is declined because the established criteria for recall are not met and there is no error in the Court's factual findings; therefore failure to correct the alleged discrepancy would not cause a substantial miscarriage of justice.
1 Jul 2022
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Court of Appeal's refusal to extend time for a criminal appeal; when the application is treated as an application for extension of time to seek leave for a leapfrog appeal, the proposed grounds do not establish a substantial miscarriage of justice and there are no exceptional circumstances, so the extension application is dismissed.
2 Sept 2016
Applications dismissed: the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Court of Appeal's refusal to extend time, and no exceptional circumstances or s13 criteria exist to justify a direct (leap‑frog) appeal; the Court of Appeal's assessment that the underlying appeal was weak is accepted.
24 Mar 2016
The application for a stay was dismissed after balancing factors under r 12 and r 17.29: the appeal would not be rendered nugatory if enforcement proceeded because plaintiffs could be required to repay if successful on appeal; the appellants' grounds were not sufficiently strong to justify a stay; charging orders and security protected the plaintiffs' position; and overall convenience and absence of a demonstrated substantial miscarriage of justice favoured dismissal of the stay application.
13 Dec 2013
Leave to appeal was refused because the case did not raise any matter of general or public importance, the propensity evidence issue was governed by existing Supreme Court authority (Mahomed), there was no substantial risk of miscarriage of justice given the strength of the lead charge and the absence of any challenge to joinder, and therefore the interests of justice did not require granting leave.
20 Dec 2012
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and identified the central issue for the appeal as whether the Court of Appeal was correct in concluding that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred despite the jury being given and reading two interview transcripts not put into evidence.
30 May 2012
Because the disputed electronic file was not in the prosecutor's possession and, when it came to light, was disclosed promptly with adjournments and rulings by the trial judge, the late disclosure did not produce unfair prejudice or an appearance of substantial miscarriage of justice; accordingly leave to appeal is refused.
9 Feb 2012
The Court granted leave because the question whether the jury directions were appropriate and whether any defect produced a substantial miscarriage of justice raised an arguable issue meriting full appellate consideration.
25 Feb 2011
Grant leave limited to the issue whether evidence of complaints to two family members was admissible; leave refused on the ground concerning the appellant's alleged statement to the complainant's mother because that evidence could not have caused a substantial miscarriage of justice.
3 Feb 2011
Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal had carefully considered the applicant's grounds, found the fresh evidence not credible after seeing and hearing the witness, and the applicant failed to demonstrate arguability of general importance or a substantial miscarriage of justice.