Jamieson v The Queen

Jamieson was convicted of murder and appealed against the decision to a higher court, seeking leave to appeal against the conviction. The crux of the appeal was the trial judge's refusal to permit a change of plea from guilty to not guilty. Jamieson argued that the refusal resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and that the trial judge had erred by not finding that he had a viable defence. Additionally, Jamieson contended that the trial judge's failure to consider whether there was an issuable question of guilt amounted to the failure to take into account a relevant consideration.

The court examined whether the trial judge erred in refusing to permit the change of plea. It was noted that the trial judge had considered the evidence and had formed a view that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to permit the change of plea, as it was within the trial judge's discretion to do so. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge had not failed to find that Jamieson had a viable defence, as there was no evidence to support such a claim. Finally, the court held that the relevance of Jamieson's subjective belief in his innocence was not a relevant consideration in determining whether the trial judge had erred.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to permit the change of plea, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court also held that the trial judge had not failed to find that Jamieson had a viable defence, and that the relevance of Jamieson's subjective belief in his innocence was not a relevant consideration.