16 Mar 2018
Appeal dismissed because appellant did not demonstrate a personal injury by accident: medical evidence did not establish tissue damage or causation from lead/arsenic attributable to the property, exposure was a gradual process not a specific occasion as required by s25 and was not work-related, and hair analysis was insufficient to prove poisoning causally linked to the injury.
5 Aug 2014
The jury could reasonably, on the totality of scientific and circumstantial evidence, be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Milner administered promethazine without Mr Nisbet's knowledge; the Crown was not required to prove as a separate essential fact the precise mechanical means of administration and the appeal is dismissed.
1 May 2014
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error or prejudice from the manner in which the toxicologist's evidence was presented, there is no credible causation challenge, and no appearance of miscarriage of justice or point of public importance.
16 Mar 2012
Because there was a viable possibility that objectively relevant new evidence (alleging chloramphenicol in Foray 48b) had not been considered by the Toxicology Panel and the Panel's chair invited objective scientific evidence, the court exercised its discretion to withhold final determination and allow the material to be referred to the independent Toxicology Panel for consideration; this met the low threshold for extenuating circumstances and potential merit required to justify further inquiry.