12 Jun 2017
The Court permitted the Crown to re-examine Miss Clark on the two specified matters (presence of blood and alleged identification implicating the defendant) but required that the full relevant parts of her earlier statements be put to her.
12 Apr 2017
The incidents complained of did not produce a real risk of unfairness: the prosecutor's remark merely indicated the witness did not wish to see the defendant and was cured by repeated judicial directions about the neutral purpose of screens; the police officer's remark was readily explicable by small‑town familiarity and did not imply bad character; the re‑examination material had been foreshadowed in the interview and late disclosure of intelligence notes, while acknowledged, caused no prejudice sufficient to vitiate the trial; accordingly no miscarriage of justice occurred and convictions s…
26 Apr 2013
The Supreme Court held that the trial judge did not err in allowing the Crown to elicit and explore a prior inconsistent statement in re-examination in the circumstances: where the prior statement was independently admissible as to facts in issue under the Evidence Act and the questioning was permitted under the judge's s89 discretion as clarification/scene-setting rather than impermissible cross-examination, a prior s94 determination of hostility was not required; likewise s37(4)(b) permits offering evidence as to facts in issue contrary to a witness's evidence without prior hostility determ…
30 May 2012
Grant leave limited to the ground that questions whether the prosecutor's re-examination caused a substantial miscarriage of justice by eliciting a previous statement; decline leave on the ground challenging admission of propensity evidence because that evidence was admissible under s 43 and no propensity direction was justified in the trial's context.