16 Nov 2022
Leave to appeal denied because the trial judge, after a careful investigatory process and consultation with counsel, lawfully discharged a juror who indicated she could not continue; the discharge fell within the Juries Act discretion, the Court of Appeal correctly deferred to the trial judge's assessment of demeanour and dynamics, and no miscarriage of justice or question of public importance was shown.
30 Sept 2019
The Court held the verdicts were not unsafe because the jury could rationally distinguish between two separate episodes of sexual activity: evidence (flatmate's observation and appellant's account) could support reasonable belief in consent for earlier acts while complainant's firm denial, corroborated by medical injuries, justified guilty verdict for the later episode. The majority verdict direction was properly given and a Papadopoulos direction was not required; the juror's extraneous conduct did not establish a miscarriage of justice, therefore the conviction is safe and the appeal is dis…
6 Sept 2019
The trial Judge did not miscarry in giving the Papadopoulos direction; he acted within his discretion after substantial deliberation by the jury, nothing in the jury notes or circumstances indicated true deadlock or trend to acquittal, and the jury's final note showed they had almost reached a decision before the direction, so the direction did not render the verdict unsafe.
21 Aug 2018
Verdicts were not inconsistent because the jury could reasonably have found differences in timing and in whether the complainant was under 16 or whether consent (or reasonable belief in consent) existed for particular acts; prolonged deliberations did not occasion a miscarriage of justice absent evidence of juror exhaustion or distress and the trial judge properly exercised discretion; R v AM applies to offences sentenced after its delivery even if the offending occurred earlier; the eight year starting point and resulting four year sentence were not manifestly excessive.
16 Jul 2018
The Court held that lesser included/alternative charges properly put to the jury under s 143 CPA and recorded in a charge list (which has no independent legal status) may be the subject of valid convictions even where the jury cannot agree on the principal charges; convictions on included charges taken in this way are not a miscarriage provided the Crown does not seek a retrial on the principal charges (in which case pursuit might constitute an abuse of process as explained in Lualua). Consequently the convictions on the alternatives stood and there was no miscarriage. Extension of time to ap…
6 Dec 2017
Photographic identification was admissible and sufficiently reliable given prior acquaintance, proximity and corroborating detail; recall of the identification witness was lawful and non-prejudicial (trial counsel consented); the judge's answers to the jury were accurate and did not misstate the burden or convert identification into a fact of whereabouts; prosecutorial remarks were peripheral and did not cause miscarriage; a Papadopoulos direction was not required before a majority verdict direction in the circumstances; sentencing fell within the appropriate Mako range and the judge acted wi…
27 Jul 2016
The Court held the circumstantial evidence (vehicle matching getaway car, discovery of matching track pants with the appellant's DNA, and his presence driving a similar vehicle) was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict, and that the trial judge was not required to poll the jury after the announced unanimous verdict because he had the foreman's written and oral assurances and observed no sign of dissent; accordingly no miscarriage of justice occurred and the appeal was dismissed.
12 Dec 2011
Leave to appeal was denied because the statutory process for majority verdicts was followed and the alleged juror concerns could not overcome the prohibition in s 76 Evidence Act 2006; additionally the point was not raised in the Court of Appeal and thus could not be raised for the first time in this Court.
16 Feb 2011
Leave to appeal was dismissed because there was no basis to conclude the judge erred in giving further directions after the jury's notification and no miscarriage of justice could have arisen from the subsequent deliberations and majority verdicts.