Carnaby v The Queen

The case of Carnaby v The Queen involved an appeal against the applicant's conviction. The applicant had been represented by competent trial counsel but subsequently withdrew his instructions. The trial judge faced the challenge of managing delays in obtaining new counsel, the length of the trial to date, and the applicant's ability to conduct the trial. The applicant contested several aspects of the trial, including the jury's acceptance or rejection of witness evidence, the Crown's obligation to call all relevant witnesses, and the admissibility of certain evidence. The applicant argued that the verdicts were unreasonable due to inconsistencies in a witness's evidence and that the Crown had failed to call or make available for cross-examination all relevant witnesses.

The court addressed these issues by examining the jury's role in accepting or rejecting evidence and noted that no appeal lies against a verdict of not guilty. It was determined that the Crown's obligation to call relevant witnesses did not apply to those who could not be located, and evidence of unsuccessful attempts to locate such witnesses was deemed sufficient. The court found that no fundamental inconsistency in the evidence had caused reasonable doubt about the applicant's involvement. Furthermore, the trial judge's decision not to admit evidence of a co-offender's previous conviction, where the circumstances were unknown, was upheld. The court concluded that none of the verdicts of guilt were unsafe, unreasonable, or inconsistent, and it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt. The court also noted that the trial judge had taken significant steps to ensure the applicant received a fair trial, and the jury's deliberation time was not unreasonably short.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that none of the verdicts were unsafe, unreasonable, or inconsistent. The applicant's second application for bail, made for the purposes of preparing his appeal, was also dismissed as the basis for the bail being granted had fallen away.