Andrew O’Brien appeared for the appellant on ground 4, instructed by McGinness & Associates Lawyers.
The judgment concerned an appeal against conviction, regarding a previous judgment where the appellant was found guilty with 28 counts against his daughters.
The grounds of appeal were (1) whether the primary judge’s decision to limit the scope of further cross-examination denied him a fair chance of acquittal, (4) whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury against placing undue weight upon certain exhibits, and to consider them the context of cross-examination, and (5) whether his trial lawyers’ failure to follow instructions to call the appellant and additional defence witnesses, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
The Court held that the trial judge acted within discretion, and that the limitation was appropriate. The Court found that the trial judge had not erred in failing to direct the jury as such direction would have undermined the defence strategy. The Court rejected the appellant’s claim that his trial lawyers failed to follow instructions, finding that the decision was made with the appellant’s informed agreement.
The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, granted leave to amend the notice of appeal, and refused leave to adduce further evidence.
unanimously held that the verdicts were not unreasonable. The majority also found that the trial judge adequately directed the jury in relation to the Crown prosecutor’s submission and did not cause a miscarriage of justice. The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
