Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where appellant convicted of six counts of armed robbery and five counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle to facilitate commission of indictable offence – where search of appellant’s car by police led to discovery of bullet-proof vest – where also found other paraphernalia of an armed robber – where no evidence that the person who carried out the robberies in question wore a bullet-proof vest – whether evidence of its finding was more prejudicial than probative and should therefore have been excluded

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVICENCE – where was agreement between prosecution and defence that the finding of methadone in the car would not be mentioned during the trial – where witness mentioned the methadone in oral evidence – where methadone was mentioned in a video which jury could have played when deliberating – where there was a fundamental error such as constituted a miscarriage of justice – whether verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER – JOINT OR SEPARATE TRIAL – GENERALLY – where some of the robberies in question were committed on liquor outlets and some on financial institutions – where pre-trial hearing was held to determine whether separate trials should be held – whether there was a marked difference between the two groups of charges such as warranted ordering separate trials

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – FRESH EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant applied for adjournment of the hearing of the appeal so that he could have certain items tested for DNA – where no request to have tests done before trial – whether identification of a person in this manner would strengthen the defence case – whether any proper basis for a direction that DNA testing be carried out