23 total
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to reopen a sentence appeal already decided on its merits.
The applicant sought leave to reopen his sentence appeal on sexual assault and voyeurism convictions, arguing that a subsequent overturning of related domestic assault convictions constituted a change in circumstances warranting reconsideration.
The applicant sought credit for pre-sentence custody previously applied to the now-quashed domestic assault conviction and argued the sentencing judge had improperly considered the domestic assault conviction as an aggravating factor.
The court dismissed the application, holding it lacked jurisdiction to reopen an appeal already decided on its merits and that, even if jurisdiction existed, the interests of justice would not support reopening.
The court dismissed an application to admit expert psychiatric evidence on the 'fight or flight' response and marijuana effects due to an insufficient evidentiary foundation.
The defendant, charged with second-degree murder, sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence on the "fight or flight" reaction and the effects of marijuana to support self-defence and provocation.
The court dismissed the application, finding an insufficient evidentiary foundation for the proposed expert testimony to be relevant and necessary to the specific facts of the case.
The court also expressed obiter doubts about the necessity of such evidence, particularly regarding the "fight or flight" response, which is generally within the common experience of a jury.
The court granted a conditional stay of proceedings until state-funded counsel is provided for the accused.
The applicant, charged with Assault Causing Bodily Harm arising from an incident at a nightclub where the complainant allegedly fell down stairs, sought a Conditional Stay of prosecution on the basis that he required state-funded defence counsel to receive a fair trial.
The applicant had been denied Legal Aid and exhausted all appeals.
The court applied the Rowbotham test, examining whether the accused had exhausted legal aid efforts, lacked personal financial resources, and whether his right to a fair trial would be infringed without counsel.
The court found that the case presented significant complexity involving eyewitness identification and potential self-defence issues, and that the accused's ability to defend himself without counsel was insufficient to ensure a fair trial.
The court granted the Conditional Stay pending provision of state-funded counsel.