The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, appealed his conviction for fraud.
At trial, he called the investigating officer as his own witness and elicited prejudicial opinion and investigative hearsay evidence.
The trial judge failed to give a limiting instruction on the use of this evidence and instead invited the jury to use it to support the Crown's case.
The Court of Appeal held that the evidence was admissible only for a limited purpose and required a clear limiting instruction.
The curative proviso could not be applied, as the evidence provided a clear route to conviction.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.
