Citation:Forrester v The King

In Forrester v The King, the appellant was convicted of a violent act causing death. The appeal concerned alleged errors by the trial judge in rejecting an application to discharge the jury and in permitting the Crown to reopen its case. The appellant argued that these errors, along with alleged misdirections in the summing up, resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice, particularly in relation to his defence of self-defence.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury, whether the judge wrongly allowed the Crown to reopen its case, and whether these decisions, coupled with errors in the summing up, created a real prospect that the appellant would have been acquitted had they not occurred. The court considered the principles governing the reopening of a case by the Crown, particularly in light of potential prejudice to the accused.

The court reasoned that the circumstances in which the Crown sought to reopen its case were foreseeable and not exceptional, distinguishing the situation from cases where such a course might be justified. Citing principles from *Shaw* and *R v Chin*, the court emphasised that reopening a case after the defence has closed should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and where the accused will not be unfairly prejudiced. The court found that the admission of evidence in reply, after the defence had closed, unfairly prejudiced the appellant and drew undue attention to damaging material. This, combined with alleged errors in the summing up, led the court to conclude that there was a real prospect of acquittal on the grounds of self-defence.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a retrial was ordered.