17
allegation that the learned judge himself gave evidence of
comparison of handwriting. In our view the allegation is entirely without foundation for what the judge sought to do was no more than to refer to variations which had been the subject of evidence by Dr. Edgley. Unfortunately in doing so the judge used the phrase "personal variations" when what he meant was "natural
variations" as distinct from "personal characteristics".
We do
not think the jury would have been misled: it was common ground that the documents to which the judge was referring were all written by the same hand.
For the reasons we have given the applications of the second, third and fourth Applicants are dismissed. Treating this as the hearing of the first Applicant's appeal, we allow his appeal, quash the conviction and he is discharged.
22nd March 1974.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.