Cramphorn v Bailey

In the matter of Cramphorn v Bailey, the respondent appealed against his conviction for assault and breach of a police order. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the trial was fair, with a particular focus on whether new and fresh evidence could be considered, and whether a restraining order was appropriate to protect witnesses from cross-examination by the alleged perpetrator of violence. Another issue was whether the self-represented appellant was adequately informed of his right to make an opening address during the trial.

The court found that the trial was conducted fairly and that the new evidence presented did not warrant a different outcome. The court was satisfied that the restraining order was necessary to protect the witnesses from the appellant, who had a history of violence. The court also held that the appellant, who chose to represent himself, was not adequately informed of his right to make an opening address, but this did not affect the overall fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and denied leave to appeal.