and counsel for the Crown has emphasised the words "any counts".
We think that there is no justification for limiting those words
to include only counts which have not been the subject matter of
adjudication by the magistrate. We think that counsel is correct
when he says that this really is a matter of procedure and that
where a single charge has been rejected by the magistrate the only way in which the Attorney General can proceed upon that
charge is either by a fresh committal or by obtaining a voluntary
bill. Where there is a plurality of charges and a committal on
any one of them, but a rejection of another, then that other may
be re-introduced in the indictment and the burden is then thrown
on to the defence of moving to quash the indictment. It is
merely a matter of convenience. No possible injustice can result because, as in the case of the one charge, it would have been
possible for a further committal or a voluntary bill to be obtained.
For that reason we think that in the event there is no
substance in this ground of appeal.
:
The
Perhaps the most important part of the submission is that there was no se to answer against the sixth Appellant. evidence consisted in large part of the statements which, he made and those statements, in our view, were strong evidence against him, but there was other evidence in the case of this particular Appellant. There was found in his possession a jacket which at
one stage he admitted to be his. Later he said that he was not
wearing it on the day of the affray and that it was lent to him. On this jacket there were found two things, a blood stain and fibres from a jacket which had been worn by the Deceased. Along with that evidence there was evidence that on the shirt of this Appellant there was a blood stain of the same blood group as the Deceased, and also on the shirt there were fibres from the clothing of the Deceased. It was relevant that this Appellant was a police officer who, immediately after the alleged offences, was absent for two days from his duty without explanation and that when he was arrested he gave a false name. The statements to which we have referred at one point actually refer to his having 'baught up with" the Deceased in the course of the affray, which is indicative of his having been actively engaged in the attack upon him. It was for the jury to decide whether or not this man was involved in the affray, whether he was involved in the attack upon the Deceased and, if he was so