10 Apr 2018
Although the judge should have briefly summarised the Crown and defence cases, the omission did not produce a miscarriage of justice given the case's simplicity, detailed question trails, comprehensive counsel submissions, and the fact that the complainant's erroneous remark was contradicted by the defendant's interview and evidence; Evidence Act s32 did not apply.
12 Jul 2016
The Judge's substantive cross-examination-style interventions of defence witnesses together with unfair, non-evidential comments in the summing-up on a central factual issue (the locked door/mattress) cumulatively risked prejudicing the jury against the defence; those errors caused an unfair trial, requiring convictions to be set aside and a retrial ordered.
16 Jun 2016
Prosecutor's comments denying motive to lie did not relieve the Crown of its burden because they were directed against the defence theory of collusion and were accompanied by clear judicial directions that the onus remained on the Crown; although judge ought to have expressly warned against illegitimate propensity reasoning, the summing‑up as a whole sufficiently directed the jury to decide each count separately and avoided miscarriage of justice; sentencing classification as a band four (most serious) case was correct and a 14 year starting point (reduced to 13 for age) was within available…
14 Jun 2016
The Court granted the extension of time because the Crown suffered no prejudice, and dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the District Court judge did not err in refusing adjournments in the face of the appellant's obstructive conduct, trial counsel provided competent and effective representation so no miscarriage of justice occurred, the summing‑up fairly reflected counsel's addresses and did not misdirect the jury, and the sentence of three years was within the applicable guideline range for low‑level methamphetamine supply and therefore not manifestly excessive.