SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND"

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v S [2000] QCA 256 PARTIES: R v S (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 80 of 2000 DC No 80 of 1999 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against Conviction District Court at Mackay DELIVERED ON: 30 June 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 21 June 2000 JUDGES: Pincus JA, Davies JA, Thomas JA Joint reasons for judgment of Pincus and Davies JJA; separate reasons of Thomas JA, concurring as to the orders made ORDER: 1. Appeal against conviction allowed 2. Conviction set aside 3. New trial ordered CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW EVIDENCE EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS CHARACTER AND PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS ADMISSIBILITY IN CROSS-EXAMINATION JUDICIAL DISCRETION PARTICULAR CASES appellant accused of indecently assaulting young child in garage child's mother alleged appellant's wife impeded her discovery of child and appellant appellant's wife denied trying to do so or trying to warn appellant of their approach prosecutor allowed to cross-examine on prior charges did not result in any convictions whether evidence of prior charges admissible Evidence Act 1977 s 15 Attwood (1960) 102 CLR 353, cited Gipp (1998) 194 CLR 106, mentioned Kilbourne [1973] AC 729, mentioned Maxwell [1935] AC 309, applied P v The Queen (1993) 61 SASR 75, applied

2 2 COUNSEL: SOLICITORS: Sutton (1984) 152 CLR 528, mentioned R v Hasler; ex parte A-G [1987] 1 Qd R 239, mentioned R A Mulholland QC for the appellant T A C Winn for the respondent Bill Cooper & Associates (Mackay) for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent [1] PINCUS and DAVIES JJA: The appellant was convicted, after a trial, of unlawful and indecent assault which was said to have occurred in July There is an appeal against conviction as well as an application for leave to appeal against sentence; it is unnecessary to deal with the latter proceeding. [2] The Crown case was that at the time when the offence was committed the appellant and the complainant, then aged five and a half, were in the garage of a house occupied by the appellant and his wife. It was said that the appellant pulled the complainant's pants down and put his finger or fingers in her vagina. The allegation was that the complainant was at the time in the open boot of a car. The complainant gave evidence that after this occurrence the complainant's mother and the appellant's wife, who is the aunt of the complainant's mother, arrived and helped to get her out of the boot. The mother's evidence was that at the time in question she was talking to the aunt when she realized the complainant was missing and asked the aunt where the complainant was. She said: "... we both went towards the garage, she went in first and wouldn't let me through and as we were getting to the garage she started talking louder and louder... then [the appellant] came racing around and stopped us from getting in". The mother said that she had to push her way through to get to her daughter and then both she and the aunt got her out of the car boot. The aunt's evidence was that she went with the mother to the garage and saw the appellant standing at the back of the boot, the complainant being in the boot. The aunt agreed that she and the mother lifted the complainant out of the boot. [3] Neither the mother nor the aunt gave evidence of noticing anything unusual about the complainant when she was removed from the boot; but the mother spoke of having at a later time seen redness in the area of the complainant's vagina and of receiving a complaint from her. The presently significant differences between the evidence of the mother and that of the aunt relate to the questions of obstruction of the mother in her attempt to go into the garage and warning the appellant of that attempt. When counsel mentioned to the aunt the mother's evidence that during movement towards the garage, the aunt spoke more loudly, she answered "I doubt that very much. Why would I do that?" The aunt denied that the mother would have had any difficulty in passing her and said in effect that she (the aunt) had no reason to suspect anything was happening in the garage. The appellant's evidence was that the complainant got herself into the boot of the car and that he committed no such wrongful act as was alleged. [4] The ground of appeal is that the judge allowed in evidence of other, similar, charges having been made against the appellant. The respondent contended that the judge

3 3 was correct in doing so, but conceded that if the admission of the evidence was wrong then the conviction must be set aside. [5] During defence counsel's examination of the aunt in chief, the prosecutor asked the judge for permission to cross-examine about other charges which had been laid against the appellant. She explained that in February 1998, a few months before the offence for which the appellant was being tried was committed, the aunt had given evidence in favour of the appellant (her husband) in relation to similar allegations. The prosecutor said: "So, I want to be able to put to her the fact that she didn't trust him with this child, and that if he was doing something to this child, she wanted to warn him so he wouldn't be caught because similar allegations were made of things of acts that happened in the garage in the trial beforehand". After a ruling by the judge in favour of the prosecutor, the aunt was asked in cross-examination about having raised her voice and obstructed the mother, as alleged by the mother. The aunt denied these suggestions and denied a further suggestion that she did not want her husband "to be seen or to be vulnerable in a position alone with - with a young girl." There was this passage in the evidence: "Come on,... you had concerns about - about the vulnerability of your husband being with - alone with a young girl? - Well, wouldn't you? Well, why is that...? - Well, there's no particular reason, is there?". [6] Then there was cross-examination about the previous charges, from which it emerged that the appellant had recently defended five charges of indecent dealing, involving another young girl. Two of the allegations related to indecent dealing in the same garage, the appellant being at the time alone with the child in the garage. It was established by the cross-examination that the appellant was found not guilty in respect of those two charges and that the jury failed to agree about three other charges. The prosecutor then again suggested to the aunt that she was "concerned about your husband being seen to be in a vulnerable position alone with the child in that garage area". She denied that. [7] The purpose of the cross-examination by the prosecutor about the other charges was to show that the aunt had a reason for raising her voice to warn the appellant of the approach of the mother and a reason for obstructing that approach. If the jury thought or suspected that the aunt tried to warn her husband, the appellant, and tried to obstruct the mother's approach to the garage, they could have been inclined to think that the aunt was attempting to save the appellant from being discovered in the course of committing another offence of the same kind as those on which he had recently been tried or, to put this more simply, that the aunt thought: "Oh, he's at it again". The chain of reasoning would be: (a) The aunt believed or suspected that the appellant had committed similar offences previously. (b) She thought that he might be in the course of committing another such offence. (c) Her attempt to warn and to obstruct the mother's approach were intended to protect the appellant, her husband, from detection.

4 4 [8] The jury should not have been tempted to adopt such a mode of reasoning. The appellant had been acquitted of the two previous garage charges and the jury had failed to agree on three other charges. It was said in the House of Lords in Maxwell [1935] AC 309, 320, that proof that a man had been charged with an offence is irrelevant. The passage goes on: "Such questions must, therefore, be excluded on the principle which is fundamental in the law of evidence as conceived in this country, especially in criminal cases, because, if allowed, they are likely to lead the minds of the jury astray into false issues; not merely do they tend to introduce suspicion as if it were evidence, but they tend to distract the jury from the true issue - namely, whether the prisoner in fact committed the offence on which he is actually standing his trial". [9] In Attwood (1960) 102 CLR 353 at 359 the High Court explained that evidence of bad character of an offender is excluded "as a matter of policy, policy deeply rooted in principle". A further explanation of the reason for the exclusion of evidence of offences other than those charged is given in Kilbourne [1973] AC 729 at quoted with approval in Sutton (1984) 152 CLR 528 at 545. [10] It was suggested, as we understood the argument, by counsel for the respondent, that the admission of the evidence in issue here could be defended on the ground that it was evidence only of charges, not convictions. In P v The Queen (1993) 61 SASR 75 a similar point arose. There, cross-examination of the accused on prior convictions was allowed under the South Australian provision corresponding to our s 15(2) and s 15(3) of the Evidence Act In holding that the judge erred in permitting this to occur, King CJ remarked: "It would be obvious that the disclosure would be so prejudicial to the fair trial of the action that any marginal bearing that it might have upon the credibility of the appellant as a witness would fade into insignificance. To my mind, therefore, the cross-examination as to that conviction ought not to have been allowed. I would have said that even if it had not been subject to appeal at the time of trial. But the fact that a conviction is the subject of a pending appeal is, itself, an overwhelming reason why a Crown Prosecutor should not cross-examine upon it,... ". (80) [11] So much more, then, must the fact that there has been no conviction at all but merely charges, some resulting in acquittal, be a reason against letting in evidence of the kind in question here. [12] King CJ referred to the "marginal bearing" of the evidence being considered on the credit of the accused; here, the evidence was adduced not in cross-examination of the accused but in cross-examination of another defence witness. We have discussed above the way we think the jury might have taken it, but it is necessary to note that the learned primary judge allowed admission of the evidence on a different basis: "[The aunt] was aware of the allegations that indecent dealings had been made against [the appellant] so recently in the past. Some when he was alone with a child in the garage. Even if those allegations were totally false, it would be natural for a wife to be

5 5 concerned that her husband might expose himself to any further such situations; that he not leave himself open to them, by being alone". And the judge gave a direction to the jury, along these lines, explaining the relevance of the evidence. [13] The case has not to be determined on the basis that the damage to the appellant's chances of acquittal was limited to the possibility that the jury might, for the reason assigned by the judge, doubt the credit of the aunt. The risks were two: first, that the jury would tend to think that the appellant had a history of committing similar offences and, secondly, that they would tend to think that the aunt, knowing of that history, was trying to protect the appellant against the possibility of being discovered in the commission of another such offence. [14] The rule against attempting to prove the commission of a charged offence by evidence of the commission of others is subject to some exceptions, the three most important of which are the "similar facts" rule, s 15 of the Evidence Act 1977 and the "guilty passion" rule discussed in Gipp (1998) 194 CLR 106. None of this is or could be relied on here. Any relevance which evidence of the other charges might have had in determining the aunt's credit was swamped by the danger that the evidence would prejudice the jury against the appellant, on the bases mentioned above. Nor is the verdict saved by the circumstance that at the one stage the defence might have contemplated calling evidence about the other charges. [15] The appeal must be allowed, the conviction set aside and a new trial ordered. [16] THOMAS JA: The relevant facts are set out in the joint reasons of Pincus and Davies JJA with which I respectfully agree. [17] The questions which the Crown Prosecutor wished to ask in cross-examination of a defence witness (Aunt Mary) were prima facie allowable questions directed to her credibility 1. They were directed towards showing that she had a motive to protect her husband from surveillance. A Crown witness had described obstructive conduct by Aunt Mary consistent with her having fenced off her husband from possible discovery, but Aunt Mary denied this in her evidence. The position of the cross-examiner was only strengthened by the witness' rhetorical answers on a number of occasions "Why would I do that?". Questions designed to show a convincing reason for Aunt Mary s allegedly odd conduct were prima facie proper questions for the cross-examiner to pursue. It is unnecessary to determine the further question whether the evidence could be regarded as a truly collateral issue such as bias of the defence witness, or as a circumstance that in combination with other circumstances might be probative, because in any event the court would have a discretion 2 to exclude such questions on the ground that their prejudicial effect strongly outweighed their potential probative value. [18] The problem in pursuing such a line of cross-examination was that it involved the necessary adduction of a preliminary fact that the accused had been charged with five similar offences, two of them in the same garage. Such evidence would necessarily come before the jury as a collateral fact irrespective of whether Aunt 1 2 Hally v Starkey & Anor ex parte Hally [1962] Qd R 474, 478. R v Hasler ex parte Attorney-General [1987] 1 Qd R 239, , , 251,

6 6 Mary agreed that it had affected her conduct. The serious prejudice from evidence of similar criminal charges having been laid is inescapable. By contrast its "probative value" was essentially an indirect discrediting of a witness who was describing surrounding circumstances. The prejudice from permitting the questioning was very much greater than any probative value that could be added to the prosecution case by permitting the questions. The authorities concerning the judicial discretion to exclude logically probative evidence that will also disclose the fact of an accused's conviction of other offences are usefully collected in R v Hasler ex parte Attorney-General 3. The present is a clear example of a case where the true probative value of the evidence was indirect and of little value compared with the extreme prejudice that was likely to result from illegitimate propensity reasoning. [19] I agree that the appeal must be allowed. 3 [1987] 1 Qd R 239, , , 251,

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v MCE [2015] QCA 4 PARTIES: R v MCE (appellant) FILE NO: CA No 186 of 2014 DC No 198 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Hoet [2016] QCA 230 PARTIES: R v HOET, Reece Karaitana (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 64 of 2016 DC No 548 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. N M Dutch for Appellant I R Murray and R K Thomson for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. N M Dutch for Appellant I R Murray and R K Thomson for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Galigan [2017] QCA 231 PARTIES: R v GALIGAN, Robert Brian (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 53 of 2017 DC No 61 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v M [2003] QCA 380 PARTIES: R v M (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 92 of 2003 DC No 334 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Maddison [2013] QCA 132 PARTIES: R v MADDISON, Steven Robert (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 328 of 2012 DC No 285 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2006 BETWEEN: LAURIANO RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice

More information

DAVID STANLEY TRANTER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

DAVID STANLEY TRANTER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985 AND S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE

More information

CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. J U Mooney for Appellant JEL Carruthers for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. J U Mooney for Appellant JEL Carruthers for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA297/2017 [2017] NZCA 535 BETWEEN AND CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 15 November 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Lang and

More information

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA82/2014 [2014] NZCA 304 BETWEEN AND TOESE

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Vincent Olebogang Magano and

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Vincent Olebogang Magano and THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case no: 849/12 Not reportable Vincent Olebogang Magano and The State Appellant Respondent Neutral citation: Magano v S (849/12)[2013]

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT RUBEN M. TIRADO, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D15-802 [May 3, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth

More information

James Elijah Calloway v. State of Maryland, No. 2701, September Term, 2000

James Elijah Calloway v. State of Maryland, No. 2701, September Term, 2000 HEADNOTE: James Elijah Calloway v. State of Maryland, No. 2701, September Term, 2000 CLOSING ARGUMENT A prosecutor may comment on race if in legitimate response to an argument made on behalf of the defendant.

More information

ADDIE NKOSINGIPHILE SHABANGU

ADDIE NKOSINGIPHILE SHABANGU SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,

More information

JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA. SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the 6 th December, 2011 and 8 th May, 2012

JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA. SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the 6 th December, 2011 and 8 th May, 2012 IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT NDOLA (Criminal Jurisdiction) SCZ/103/2011 BETWEEN: JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA APPELLANT VS THE PEOPLE RESPONDENT Coram: SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Stubberfield v Lippiatt & Anor [2007] QCA 90 PARTIES: JOHN RICHARD STUBBERFIELD (plaintiff/appellant) v FREDERICK WALTON LIPPIATT (first defendant/first respondent)

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 4, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-1071 Lower Tribunal No. 14-554 Terrence Jefferson,

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL RS and SS (Exclusion of appellant from hearing) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00012 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 18 December 2007 Before: Mr C M G

More information

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the appeal between:- Appeal No. : A176/2008 BRAKIE SAMUEL MOLOI Appellant and THE STATE Respondent CORAM: EBRAHIM, J et LEKALE, AJ HEARD

More information

Cotton, T. (2010) 'Court of appeal: Confession evidence and the circumstances requiring a voir dire', Journal of Criminal Law, 74 (5), pp

Cotton, T. (2010) 'Court of appeal: Confession evidence and the circumstances requiring a voir dire', Journal of Criminal Law, 74 (5), pp TeesRep - Teesside's Research Repository Court of appeal: Confession evidence and the circumstances requiring a voir dire Item type Authors Citation DOI Publisher Journal Additional Link Rights Article

More information

20 South Second Street 8026 Woodstream Drive, NW Fourth Floor Canal Winchester, OH Newark, OH 43055

20 South Second Street 8026 Woodstream Drive, NW Fourth Floor Canal Winchester, OH Newark, OH 43055 [Cite as State v. Meek, 2009-Ohio-3448.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- DAVID MEEK Defendant-Appellant JUDGES: Hon. Julie A. Edwards,

More information

JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent

JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA361/2016 [2017] NZCA 69 BETWEEN AND JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: Court: Counsel: Judgment: 15 February 2017 (with an application

More information

JUDGMENT. [1] This is an appeal in terms of section 65 of Act 51 of 1977 ( the Act ) against a

JUDGMENT. [1] This is an appeal in terms of section 65 of Act 51 of 1977 ( the Act ) against a IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO.: CA&R14/10 In the matter between: BASHARAD ALI Appellant and THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT GROGAN AJ: [1] This is an appeal in terms

More information

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Peters and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Peters and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA508/2015 [2016] NZCA 138 BETWEEN AND MRINAL SARDANA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 8 March 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Winkelmann, Peters and Collins

More information

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. John H. Skinner, Judge. April 18, 2018

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. John H. Skinner, Judge. April 18, 2018 FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL LEO C. BETTEY JR., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-0064 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. John H. Skinner, Judge. April

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Andreassen [2005] QCA 107 PARTIES: R v ANDREASSEN, Jonathon Baird (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 334 of 2004 SC No 29 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Gail E. Anderson, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Gail E. Anderson, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA RICHARD SUMMERALL, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-1256

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v McPherson [2002] QCA 401 PARTIES: R v McPHERSON, Terri Ann (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 118 of 2002 DC No 39 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court

More information

IN THE CAPE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 153/2008. In the matter between: BRENDAN FAAS.

IN THE CAPE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 153/2008. In the matter between: BRENDAN FAAS. IN THE CAPE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: CASE NO: 153/2008 BRENDAN FAAS Appellant vs THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT: 29 APRIL 2008 Meer, J: [1]

More information

Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an

Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption. 2010 SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an appeal from the Intermediate Court where the Appellant

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT MUGWEDI MAKONDELELE JONATHAN

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT MUGWEDI MAKONDELELE JONATHAN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 694/13 In the matter between Not Reportable MUGWEDI MAKONDELELE JONATHAN APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Mugwedi v The

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 5 OF 2014

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 5 OF 2014 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 5 OF 2014 MAY BUSH Appellant v THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE The Hon Mr Justice Sir Manuel Sosa The Hon Mr Justice Samuel Awich The Hon Mr Justice

More information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Busia Criminal Appeal 19 of 2009 STEPHEN OUMA ERONI...APPELLANT -VERSUS- REPUBLIC...RESPONDENT J U D G E M E N T

REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Busia Criminal Appeal 19 of 2009 STEPHEN OUMA ERONI...APPELLANT -VERSUS- REPUBLIC...RESPONDENT J U D G E M E N T REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Busia Criminal Appeal 19 of 2009 STEPHEN OUMA ERONI...APPELLANT -VERSUS- REPUBLIC...RESPONDENT J U D G E M E N T The appellant STEPHEN OUMA ERONI was charged and convicted

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Reitano v Shearer & Anor [2014] QCA 336 PARTIES: MONICA-LEIGH REITANO (appellant) v BENJAMIN JOHN SHEARER (first respondent) RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED ABN 50 009 704

More information

kenyalawreports.or.ke

kenyalawreports.or.ke REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS APPELLATE SIDE HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL 184 OF 2002 (From Original Conviction(s) and Sentence(s) in Criminal Case No 1320 of 2001 of the Principal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.7 OF 2003 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: EGBERT HANLEY and THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr. Adrian Saunders

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. APPELLANT S / RESPONDENT S FACTUM (Select One)

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. APPELLANT S / RESPONDENT S FACTUM (Select One) C.A. N o A-226-09 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN: TYSON ROY (Appellant) - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondents) APPELLANT S / RESPONDENT S FACTUM (Select One) NAME OF LAW FIRM Address of law firm

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Qld Pork P/L v Lott [2003] QCA 271 PARTIES: QLD PORK PTY LTD ABN 62 257 371 610 (plaintiff/respondent) v COLLEEN THERESE LOTT (defendant/appellant) FILE NO/S: Appeal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2006- COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA- RAMADHANI, C.J., MROSO, J.A. And, KAJI J.A. NYEKA KOU Vs. REPUBLIC (Appeal from the Decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha)-

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Dawson v Jewiss; Thompson v Jewiss [2004] QCA 374 PARTIES: STUART BEVAN DAWSON (plaintiff/respondent) v HENRY WILLIAM JEWISS also known as HARRY JEWISS (defendant/appellant)

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WM Appellee Trial Court No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WM Appellee Trial Court No. [Cite as State v. Robbins, 2012-Ohio-3862.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WM-11-012 Appellee Trial Court No. 10 CR 103 v. Barry

More information

1/?-l::11 1}~" =,-. In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case number: A736/2015.

1/?-l::11 1}~ =,-. In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case number: A736/2015. ,. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case number: A736/2015 Date: 1 /;1 bt) 1 =,-. DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/ (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES:

More information

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Jan Shackelford, Judge. July 9, 2018

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Jan Shackelford, Judge. July 9, 2018 FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-711 FELICE JOHN VEACH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Jan Shackelford, Judge. July

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v BBA [2006] QCA 234 PARTIES: R v BBA (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 276 of 2005 DC No 37 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal DELIVERED

More information

REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK APPEAL JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK APPEAL JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA NOT REPORTABLE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK APPEAL JUDGMENT Case no: CA 123/2016 SAUL MBAISA APPELLANT versus THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Mbaisa v S (CA

More information

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH C, KIEFEL, BELL, GAGELER AND KEANE DANG KHOA NGUYEN APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN RESPONDENT Nguyen v The Queen [2013] HCA 32 27 une 2013 M30/2013 ORDER 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Warradoo [2014] QCA 299 PARTIES: R v WARRADOO, Charles Christopher (appellant/applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 274 of 2013 SC No 31 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING

More information

CASE NO: 554/90 AND A B BRICKWORKS (PTY) LTD VAN COLLER, AJA :

CASE NO: 554/90 AND A B BRICKWORKS (PTY) LTD VAN COLLER, AJA : CASE NO: 554/90 JACOBUS ALENSON APPELLANT AND A B BRICKWORKS (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT VAN COLLER, AJA : CASE NO: 554/90 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: JACOBUS

More information

STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT [Cite as State v. Draper, 2011-Ohio-1007.] STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 10 JE 6 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, - VS - O P I N I O N THEODIS DRAPER,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMPOPO HIGH COURT, THOHOYANDOU HELD AT THOHOYANDOU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMPOPO HIGH COURT, THOHOYANDOU HELD AT THOHOYANDOU IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMPOPO HIGH COURT, THOHOYANDOU HELD AT THOHOYANDOU In the matter between: CASE NO: A15/2012 MPHO SIPHOLI MAKHIGI RAMULONDI KHUMBUDZO First Appellant Second Appellant

More information

SUPREME COURT NGULUBE, D.C.J., GARDNER AND MUWO, J.J.S. 14TH SEPTEMBER AND 5TH OCTOBER,1982 (S.C.Z. JUDGMENT NO.28 OF 1982) APPEAL NO.

SUPREME COURT NGULUBE, D.C.J., GARDNER AND MUWO, J.J.S. 14TH SEPTEMBER AND 5TH OCTOBER,1982 (S.C.Z. JUDGMENT NO.28 OF 1982) APPEAL NO. THE PEOPLE (1982) Z.R. 115 (S.C.) SUPREME COURT NGULUBE, D.C.J., GARDNER AND MUWO, J.J.S. 14TH SEPTEMBER AND 5TH OCTOBER,1982 (S.C.Z. JUDGMENT NO.28 OF 1982) APPEAL NO.72 OF 1982 Flynote Criminal law and

More information

BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZREADT 78 READT 042/16 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND An application to review a decision of the Registrar pursuant to section 112 of the Real

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case No: 75/07 REPORTABLE ABNER MNGQIBISA APPELLANT v THE STATE RESPONDENT Before: Brand, Mlambo et Combrinck JJA Heard:

More information

Citation: Layton Eldon Manning v. The Queen Date: PESCAD 26 Docket: AD-0861 Registry: Charlottetown

Citation: Layton Eldon Manning v. The Queen Date: PESCAD 26 Docket: AD-0861 Registry: Charlottetown Citation: Layton Eldon Manning v. The Queen Date: 20011101 2001 PESCAD 26 Docket: AD-0861 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: LAYTON

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 385/97 THE QUEEN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 385/97 THE QUEEN IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 385/97 THE QUEEN v CLIFFORD ANDREW RODGER CoramEichelbaum CJ Tipping J Goddard J Hearing 30 April 1998 Counsel H Croft for Appellant S P France for Crown Judgment

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL GEORGE DANIEL. and

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL GEORGE DANIEL. and COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MAGISTERIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2 OF 2004 BETWEEN: GEORGE DANIEL and Defendant/Appellant COMPTROLLER OF INLAND REVENUE Complainant/Respondent Before: The

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Mag. Appeal No. 13 of 2011 BETWEEN DAVENDRA OUJAR Appellant AND P.C. DANRAJ ROOPAN #15253 Respondent PANEL: P. WEEKES, J A R. NARINE, J A Appearances: Mr. Jagdeo

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. E Trial Court No CR-310

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. E Trial Court No CR-310 [Cite as State v. Ambos, 2008-Ohio-5503.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY State of Ohio Appellee Court of Appeals No. E-07-032 Trial Court No. 2006-CR-310 v. Elizabeth

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at: Field House Determination Promulgated On: 18 December 2014 On: 13 August Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at: Field House Determination Promulgated On: 18 December 2014 On: 13 August Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/39272/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Determination Promulgated On: 18 December 2014 On: 13 August 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER

More information

Subscribe Past Issues Translate. October 11, 2017

Subscribe Past Issues Translate. October 11, 2017 Translate The Jurist: enews for Pennsylvania Judges About Domestic Violence Jurisprudence View this email in your browser October 11, 2017 Pennsylvania Superior Court decision on the Protection from Sexual

More information

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr M.E SETUMU COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT : ADV. NONTENJWA

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr M.E SETUMU COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT : ADV. NONTENJWA . Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE QUEEN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE QUEEN TORTOLA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIM. APP. NO.1 OF 1996 BETWEEN: BASSANO HENDRICKS and THE QUEEN Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr. G.M. Dennis Byron Chief Justice [Ag.] The Hon. Mr. Satrohan Singh

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v SCW [2018] QCA 10 PARTIES: R v SCW (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 104 of 2017 DC No 959 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

CHRISTOPHER L. KINSLER Lawrenceville, GA Associate Assistant Attorney General 150 E. Gay St. 16 th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215

CHRISTOPHER L. KINSLER Lawrenceville, GA Associate Assistant Attorney General 150 E. Gay St. 16 th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 [Cite as State v. Beem, 2015-Ohio-5587.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- KIMBERLY BEEM Defendant-Appellant JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman,

More information

The appellant is challenging the decision of Lukelelwa, J. in

The appellant is challenging the decision of Lukelelwa, J. in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.125 OF 2005 COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MTWARA. (CORAM: RAMADHANI, C.J, MUNUO J.A, AND MJASIRI, J.A) ISSA HAMIS KIMALILA APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC RESPONDENT (Appeal from the

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Buchan v Nominal Defendant [2012] QCA 136 PARTIES: JOHN DAVID BUCHAN (appellant) v NOMINAL DEFENDANT (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 11763 of 2011 SC No 7075 of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v SCG [2014] QCA 118 PARTIES: R v SCG (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 37 of 2014 DC No 59 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1997 THEODORE MARTIN HARCUM, JR. STATE OF MARYLAND

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1997 THEODORE MARTIN HARCUM, JR. STATE OF MARYLAND REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1280 September Term, 1997 THEODORE MARTIN HARCUM, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND Murphy, C.J., Davis, Harrell, JJ. Opinion by Davis, J. Filed: May 28,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA. (CORAM: LUBUVA, J.A., MROSO, J.A., And RUTAKANGWA, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA. (CORAM: LUBUVA, J.A., MROSO, J.A., And RUTAKANGWA, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA [CORAM: LUBUVA, J.A MROSSO, JA; RUTAKANGWA, J.A] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2005 NGASA MADINA APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC.. RESPONDENT (Appeal from the High

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J118/98. In the matter between: COMPUTICKET. Applicant. and

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J118/98. In the matter between: COMPUTICKET. Applicant. and IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J118/98 In the matter between: COMPUTICKET Applicant and MARCUS, M H, NO AND OTHERS Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Date of Hearing:

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A128585

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A128585 Filed 3/10/11 P. v. Youngs CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT MACKENDY CLEDENORD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-1566 [ May 23, 2018 ] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth

More information

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Lee Martin Holberton Heard on: Wednesday, 13 April 2016 Location: ACCA Offices, The

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT NOMFUSI NOMPUMZA SEYISI

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT NOMFUSI NOMPUMZA SEYISI THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 117/12 Non Reportable In the matter between: NOMFUSI NOMPUMZA SEYISI APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Seyisi v The State

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON. STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTONIO BRIGGS

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON. STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTONIO BRIGGS IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTONIO BRIGGS Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 96-09730, W. Fred Axley, Trial Judge No. W1999-00280-CCA-R3-CD

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Citation: R. v. Moman (R.), 2011 MBCA 34 Date: 20110413 Docket: AR 10-30-07421 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) C. J. Mainella and ) O. A. Siddiqui (Respondent) Applicant

More information

Alexander Blackman. In the Court Martial Appeal Court. Judgment. 21 st December 2016

Alexander Blackman. In the Court Martial Appeal Court. Judgment. 21 st December 2016 JU Alexander Blackman In the Court Martial Appeal Court Judgment 21 st December 2016 Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ and Sweeney J : 1. The court has before it this afternoon three applications. First an application

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION AR 274/05 NKOSINATHI ELIJAH MAPHUMULO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION AR 274/05 NKOSINATHI ELIJAH MAPHUMULO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA REPORTABLE NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION AR 274/05 In the matter between: NKOSINATHI ELIJAH MAPHUMULO Appellant and THE STATE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Hurt J On 6 December

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT ` THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: 459/15 AVHAPFANI DANIEL KHAVHADI RUDZANI ELISAH SIGOVHO MASHUDU JOYCE MUDAU FIRST APPELLANT SECOND

More information

R v Mavji. Page 1. All England Law Reports/1987/Volume 2 /R v Mavji - [1987] 2 All ER 758. [1987] 2 All ER 758 COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION

R v Mavji. Page 1. All England Law Reports/1987/Volume 2 /R v Mavji - [1987] 2 All ER 758. [1987] 2 All ER 758 COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION Page 1 All England Law Reports/1987/Volume 2 /R v Mavji - [1987] 2 All ER 758 [1987] 2 All ER 758 R v Mavji COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION MAY LJ, MICHAEL DAVIES AND HIRST JJ 19, 24 JUNE 1986 Criminal

More information

STATE OF OHIO LAVELLE COLEMAN

STATE OF OHIO LAVELLE COLEMAN [Cite as State v. Coleman, 2008-Ohio-2806.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 89358 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. LAVELLE COLEMAN

More information

: : : : : : : : : OPINION BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 5, Appellant, Darold William Palmore, appeals from the judgment of

: : : : : : : : : OPINION BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 5, Appellant, Darold William Palmore, appeals from the judgment of 2018 PA Super 246 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAROLD WILLIAM PALMORE Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 931 WDA 2017 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 7, 2017 In the Court

More information

Roderick V. Streater v. State of Maryland, No. 717, September Term, 1997

Roderick V. Streater v. State of Maryland, No. 717, September Term, 1997 HEADNOTE: Roderick V. Streater v. State of Maryland, No. 717, September Term, 1997 STALKING EVIDENCE -- The existence of a protective order and its contents referencing prior bad acts by defendant directed

More information

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: PROCEEDING: Mandep Sarkaria v Workers Compensation Regulator [2019] ICQ 001 MANDEP SARKARIA (appellant) v WORKERS COMPENSATION REGULATOR (respondent)

More information

STATE OF OHIO MACK THOMAS, JR.

STATE OF OHIO MACK THOMAS, JR. [Cite as State v. Thomas, 2009-Ohio-1784.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91112 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MACK THOMAS, JR.

More information

THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents

THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents NOTE: ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S

More information

d:p,- $: ~,Jo DATE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA MANDLA SIBEKO THE STATE CASE NUMBER: A90/16 DA TE: 16 February 2018

d:p,- $: ~,Jo DATE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA MANDLA SIBEKO THE STATE CASE NUMBER: A90/16 DA TE: 16 February 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA (1) REPORTABLE: Yi8'fNO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Y~O (3) REVISED d:p,- $: ~,Jo DATE CASE NUMBER: A90/16 DA TE: 16 February 2018 MANDLA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) A NO: 18/2002 C IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between:- ALEX DHIKUSOOKA and THE STATE APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPLICATION MMABATHO LEEUW J COUNSEL FOR

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM ERIC WEBB Appellant No. 540 EDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 21 January 2015 On 11 February Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS. Between MR AQIB HUSSAIN.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 21 January 2015 On 11 February Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS. Between MR AQIB HUSSAIN. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/01309/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Glasgow Determination Promulgated On 21 January 2015 On 11 February 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WM Appellee Trial Court No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WM Appellee Trial Court No. [Cite as State v. Treesh, 2008-Ohio-5630.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WM-08-006 Appellee Trial Court No. 06 CR 141 v. James

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JOSEPH DeJESUS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D15-3072 [August 16, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC 162. DAVID KEITH SILBY Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC 162. DAVID KEITH SILBY Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CRI-2015-488-000048 [2016] NZHC 162 BETWEEN AND DAVID KEITH SILBY Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: Appearances: 11 February 2016 (By

More information

Respondent. Counsel: Paul Heaslip for the Appellant Sarah Mandeno for the Respondent

Respondent. Counsel: Paul Heaslip for the Appellant Sarah Mandeno for the Respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY A193/00 BETWEEN R LYON Appellant AND THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Date of hearin g : 14 November 2000 Counsel: Paul Heaslip for the Appellant Sarah

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05. ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent. William Young P, Arnold and Ellen France JJ

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05. ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent. William Young P, Arnold and Ellen France JJ IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05 BETWEEN AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND INCOME Appellant ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2006 Court: Counsel: William

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2015 Originating from Bunda District Court, Economic Case No. 18 OF 2012,Kassonso PDM) WESIKO MALYOKI...APPELLANT

More information

Circuit Court for Cecil County Case No. 07-K UNREPORTED

Circuit Court for Cecil County Case No. 07-K UNREPORTED Circuit Court for Cecil County Case No. 07-K-07-000161 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2115 September Term, 2017 DANIEL IAN FIELDS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Leahy, Shaw Geter, Thieme,

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT MUSTAFA A. ABDULLA, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-2606 [July 5, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth

More information