The accused applied for certiorari to quash their committal for trial on a charge of first degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.
They conceded that evidence supported committal for second degree murder but argued the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded jurisdiction by finding evidence capable of supporting planning and deliberation.
The Superior Court held that certiorari is only available where a preliminary inquiry judge commits an accused without any evidence of an essential element or relies on irrational inferences.
The court concluded the hearing judge properly distinguished between speculation and rational inference and applied the correct circumstantial evidence test.
Viewing the evidence as a whole, a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer planning and deliberation.
The applications were dismissed.
