17 Jun 2005
TAITO V R SC 10/2005
- Citation
- SC 10/2005
- Court
- Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused because the matters raised had been appropriately dealt with by earlier courts (including the Privy Council and Court of Appeal), did not raise questions of general or public importance, and did not present a real risk of substantial miscarriage of justice; speculation about the summing‑up and non‑qualifying claims of counsel incompetence or jury empanelling do not suffice to grant leave.