John M. Whelton

The appellants were committed to stand trial for first degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

They applied for certiorari to quash the committals, arguing a denial of natural justice because they were not permitted to make submissions on post-offence conduct evidence.

The reviewing judge found a denial of natural justice but dismissed the application, concluding the appellants suffered no prejudice as committal was inevitable.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that a reviewing judge has inherent jurisdiction to refuse certiorari where no prejudice occurs, and found sufficient evidence of planning and deliberation to support the committals.

The appellant and a co-accused were convicted of trafficking in heroin following a joint trial before a judge and jury.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in the jury charge by conflating his defence with that of his co-defendant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge repeatedly instructed the jury to consider each accused separately and that the recharge clarified any potential confusion.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as no submissions were made.