-24-
commit suicide when he was in the nullah. Page17. "There are two avenues of approach to this side of the case which have to be explored he re that accused was attempting suicide question was also mentioned.
36
are you satisfied eto". So the suicide
Now, the le arned judge stresses to the jury not one but many times that if they nad any reasonable doubt about it that they gave the benefit of that doubt to the accused.
page 2 third line down.
page 20. 3rd paragraph down. "If you are not satisfied etc" page 24. About the middle of the page. "If you have any reasonable doubt that the accused was the man who brought about the death of Michael Pine etc".
It has not been contended that the law as to intoxication was misstated or that that point was improperly left to the jury
As to the points in which misdirection is stated the point (b) of paragraph 2 of misdirection in the first notice.
Page 14 Summing Up "There is no evidence to indicate that as Mrs.Fairburn originally
etc. How can that be
construed to be misdirection. ?
-
Mr.hayden: I think it only right to intimate to you at this stage the grounds of appeal which I am most impressed with theyvare on the two questions of fact No.1 and 2 (0). I consider both these matters are so related that they must be dealt with together. My reason for forming this opinion is that so far as I can see, there is no particle of evidence at the trial to show that the marks or bruises on Mary Pine's neck were caused by the Appellant, for all I know to the contrary it may have been caused by her rescuer who said that in his first attempt at rescue she slipped from his grasp. It is even possible that they may have been caused by contact with some inanimate object. Having regard to this fact can you explain how the learned trial judge came to use those words "There is one piece of direct evidence which from the point of view of circumstantial evidence is of considerable importance etc.
Kr. Fraser: Immediately after those words he goes to the words which I am now referring to.
Mr.Hayden: Was not the damage done by stressing this point. The considerable importance of those bruises. They could only have been connected with the act of the accused. Is the importance of value to the accused or to the Crown ? Mr.Fraser: You must read from the top of the page about 6th line down : Is it fair to say that after the learned trial judge has dealt with that point and told the jury they must give it their gravest consideration and also told them that there is no evidence at all to connect that with accused, and que t put it out of their minds as far as that is concerned is it fair to say that this is a misdirection ? It is of great "circumstantial importance".
MI.Hayden: Your point is that the remarks of the Chief Justice as to the bruises is that they were important as circumstantial evidence ?
Mr. Fraser: That is 80. It is clear, it is absolutely clear. He tells them they mustafit it in with the whole. He does not tellmthem where to fit it in. It was perfectly open to the jury in the absence of the evidence of any witness including Mary Fine, to infer where those bruises had been received. It was extremely unlikely from the position and nature of the marks that they were inflicted by an inanimate object. (Mr. Fraser continues with how the bruises were caused and that no murderer would treat his victim lightly. Mr.Fraser also points out that the learned trial judge pointed out that there were improbabilities on both sides).
Mr. Fraser: I was very careful not to put Mary Fine's evidence