6 Sept 2017
Leave to appeal was refused because the alleged trial errors did not raise questions of public importance nor give rise to an appearance of miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal correctly concluded the prosecutor's questions and closing remarks were either permissible or non‑prejudicial in light of the pattern of verdicts, admissions by the applicant, and the jury directions given.
2 Jun 2016
The amicus curiae's closing address was grossly unprofessional and prejudicial, attacking opposing counsel and attempting to introduce inadmissible material; the judge's directions to the jury were insufficient to remove the substantial risk of unfair prejudice, producing a miscarriage of justice and requiring that the convictions be set aside.
29 Jun 2006
There was no breach of s 23A because the prosecutor's remarks simply reflected the competing accounts of the Crown and defence regarding the circumstances of the alleged rape and did not insinuate inadmissible evidence; therefore the application for leave to appeal could not succeed.
17 Dec 2004
The Court granted leave because the grounds identified raise arguable and substantive errors in the Court of Appeal's application of the test for counsel error and miscarriage of justice, its handling of the Crown prosecutor's closing address regarding witnesses 'Nui' and 'Jai', and its conclusions about recent complaint evidence affecting the appellant's right to cross-examine.