R v B, FG

The applicants, BS and FB, sought permission to appeal their convictions for murder and aggravated cause harm with intent to cause harm. The applicants were part of a group that engaged in a violent attack on a group of Sudanese immigrants at Wingfield Oval. BS was found to have provided assistance to the group prior to the attack, while FB was found to have participated in the attack itself. The applicants argued that there were several errors in the trial that led to a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the applicants' convictions. Specifically, the applicants argued that the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the need for corroboration of certain witness testimony, and that they were denied a fair trial when the judge directed the jury that the applicants had to communicate their withdrawal from the enterprise to the other participants. The applicants also argued that there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions.

The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the applicants' convictions. The court found that the trial judge's direction on the need for corroboration was adequate, and that the evidence against the applicants was overwhelming. The court found that the direction on withdrawal was unduly favourable to the applicants, but that this did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the applicants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, and that there was no miscarriage of justice.

The court refused the applicants permission to appeal their convictions.