R v Arnott

In the matter of R v Arnott, the appellant, a man convicted of murder, sought leave to appeal against his conviction. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the primary focus was the admissibility of a confession made by the appellant during his trial. The appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in not exercising her discretion to exclude the confession under section 138 of the Evidence Act, which allows for the exclusion of evidence if its admission would be unfair. The appellant further contended that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and that the prosecutor had failed to comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn, which requires disclosure of all evidence favourable to the accused. Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in allowing the trial to continue with less than 12 jurors.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in not excluding the appellant's confession under the fairness discretion, whether the verdict was indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory, and if the prosecutor had indeed failed to comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn. Furthermore, the court needed to assess if the trial judge had erred in proceeding with the trial using less than 12 jurors. The court considered the appellant's arguments in light of the relevant statutory provisions and case law, including the discretion afforded to the trial judge under section 138 of the Evidence Act and the requirement for a unanimous jury verdict in criminal trials.

Upon reviewing the evidence and the arguments presented, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the appellant's confession. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately exercised her discretion under section 138 of the Evidence Act and that the confession was properly admitted. The court also determined that the verdict was safe and satisfactory, and that there was no failure by the prosecutor to comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn. Regarding the jury, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in allowing the trial to proceed with less than 12 jurors, as the appellant had not demonstrated that this procedural irregularity affected the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

The court made no orders as to costs. The appellant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence remained unchanged.