....
-3-
R. v. Morrissey
23 C.A.R. 139 in spite of Judge's
warning conviction must be quashed.
My
Conclusion of case on first point that defence was
50
seriously prejudiced by reference to evidence to be given
by Mary Fine.
Re
Misdirection re 2(a)
Defence suggested 2 other
theories i.e. (1) that the 3 other children might have fallen in when they were throwing stones or (2) that they might have gone down into nullah by the steps on the side
of nullah near bridge No.1 & were accidentally washed away.
Defence in Xum. of Mrs. Fairburn did not try to
shake her evidence as to her having seen Appellant throw
2 of the children in therefore statement by C. J. at end
of p.14 of s.-up unfair to defence.
Refers to p.6
-
not defence to say that "the other two
Defence did not assume
may have fallen through the rails".
that the Appellant was on the bridge but that he came
there on hearing screams
heard by Eric Davies.
Refers to p.15 of s.-up, 2nd last para. To say that
"the alternative is not to accept at the moment Eric
Davies' evidence" made the defence absurd.
R. v. Dinnick
Defence in this case not properly put
3 C.A.R. p.7.7.
to Jury.
R. V. Immer
13 C.A.R. p. 22.
R. V.
R. v.
So vosky
Bruhin
1 Cr. Ap. R. p.99
11 C.A.R. 277.
not properly put to Jury.
p.14.
End of ground that defence
3rd ground re 2(b) refers to paras. 3 & 4 of s.-up
If the Jury were to disregard what had been said by
Fraser as to Mary Fine's evidence then the evidence of
rs. Fine could not have been regarded as of considerable
importance.
R. V. Davies 22 Cr. App. R. p.24 re question of
"importance" of evidence.
Additional grounds of appeal on facts.-
Page 50Page 51
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.