R v Agius

The appellant, Agius, was convicted by a jury of attempted robbery and brought an appeal against the conviction to the Court of Appeal. The conviction stemmed from an incident in which the appellant handed the complainant, Andrew Feichter, a note containing an implied threat while in close proximity to him. The appellant argued that the handing over of the note was not sufficient to prove the assault element of the offence. The Court of Appeal was required to decide whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles governing an appeal on the ground that the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. The Court reviewed the appeal record and determined whether it was open, upon the whole of the evidence, for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt. The Court noted that a review of this kind involves a function to be performed within a legal system that accords special respect and legitimacy to jury verdicts deciding contested factual questions concerning the guilt of the accused in serious criminal trials. The Court also noted that if the evidence contains discrepancies, displays inadequacies, is tainted or otherwise lacks probative force in such a way as to lead the appellate court to conclude that, even making full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted, then the court is bound to act and to set aside a verdict based upon that evidence.

In this case, the Court of Appeal determined that the evidence did not establish the assault element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the handing over of the note when in close proximity to the complainant was not sufficient to prove the assault element of the offence. The Court concluded that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against conviction and set aside the verdict of conviction, entering a verdict of acquittal in its place.