7 Dec 2023
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the issues advanced are applications of settled law that do not raise matters of public or general importance nor disclose a real prospect of miscarriage of justice, and the Court of Appeal did not err in its evidential or sentencing analysis.
27 Jan 2023
Most challenged passages were admissible because they provided relevant factual context or were direct observations capable of explaining the decision‑making environment; limited passages were excluded where they amounted to speculation, inadmissible hearsay, opinion or submissions, or where probative value was outweighed by risk of prejudice; pre‑trial rulings were made selectively with leave to revisit at trial.
18 Mar 2022
The court held that many passages of the defendant's brief were inadmissible because they constituted submissions, hearsay, irrelevant material or impermissible opinion; the judge sustained the plaintiff's objections in the categories marked, set out limited exceptions, and ordered the defendant to provide a replacement brief with the inadmissible passages struck; the defendant may not read the inadmissible passages at trial.
3 Sept 2021
The judge did not err in discharging the foreperson under s22 because she was incapable of performing her duties while awaiting a COVID-19 test result and the judge properly exercised discretion in the interests of justice to proceed with the remaining ten jurors; the refusal to permit limited cross-examination on the social worker's note was an error of evidence rulings but was harmless beyond reasonable doubt; allowing the brother to state he came to believe the complainant was admissible and properly directed by the judge; appeal dismissed.
2 Sept 2021
Evidence offered to prove the natural and ordinary meaning of impugned words or the defendants' intended meaning is inadmissible; evidence that is irrelevant or whose low probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice must be excluded under s 8; rumours are admissible to prove their existence and content but not to prove their truth; non‑expert opinion and submissions in briefs are inadmissible; expert evidence on journalistic standards is relevant to the responsible communication defence, but hypothetical evidence about consequences if a professional authority were to find allegations tru…
31 May 2021
Privilege did not attach because the communications about the sale, use of proceeds and purchase of the Motor Camp were not intended to be confidential among the parties; therefore Ms Clinch's affidavit is admissible. Statements of opinion by the solicitor about the parties' apparent understanding are admissible to the extent they reflect observations and will affect weight rather than being struck out.
26 Aug 2020
The Court excluded the plaintiff expert Hazleden's Decay Risk Model because it constituted new evidence not proper in reply and would unfairly expand the case at an advanced trial stage; by contrast the Court admitted limited reply expansion where it was a direct, self-contained response to points raised by defence experts (Hadley on joint gaps and Wutzler on gutters), while leaving procedural complaints about inspections to affect weight and ordering that defendants be allowed reasonable access to conduct their own analysis.
10 Aug 2020
Paragraphs 25 and 27 and paragraph 30 of Mr Kieran Grace's brief are admissible: the contested statements fall within s24 as necessary to communicate an eyewitness's perceptions and the probative value and weight remain matters for the Court to assess at trial.
10 Aug 2020
The court held that paragraphs 9 and 21 of Mr Beattie's brief are largely admissible as observation evidence and based on his experience, but the speculative sentence in paragraph 9 about feeling no heat at the top of the pole is inadmissible lay opinion; parts of paragraph 26 are inadmissible hearsay and of little probative value, and technical causation should be addressed by expert evidence.
10 Aug 2020
The court excluded the second sentence of paragraph 6 as inadmissible opinion and/or hearsay not within the s 24 exception; the first sentence of paragraph 6 was admissible; paragraph 20 was allowed to remain in evidence subject to its weight being assessed at trial.