The appellants challenged a Divisional Court order quashing a police discipline adjudicator's ruling that admitted a complainant's preliminary inquiry testimony after the complainant refused to testify at the discipline hearing.
The Court of Appeal held that, although judicial review of a preliminary evidentiary ruling would normally be premature, the unusual circumstances justified immediate intervention because the prosecution case depended entirely on the transcript and further cross-examination on recovered memory issues was unavailable.
The court agreed that admitting the transcript would amount to a denial of natural justice and declined to interfere with the Divisional Court's exercise of discretion.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
