R v Bartorillo

The appeal in R v Bartorillo involved the appellant, who was convicted of possessing stolen property. The dispute centred around the legality of the evidence obtained by police during an unlawful search of the appellant's bag, which was in the possession of another person at the time of the search. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence from the unlawful search and in directing the jury regarding the appellant's choice not to give evidence.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge should have resolved the inconsistency in the descriptions of the police search, specifically whether the police had asked or been invited to search the bag. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the illegal search evidence was wrongfully admitted at trial and whether the trial judge's direction to the jury about the appellant's choice not to give evidence was proper.

The court found that the trial judge did not adequately address the inconsistency in the police search descriptions, leading to an incorrect decision to admit the illegal search evidence. The court also found that the trial judge's direction to the jury about the appellant's choice not to give evidence was potentially prejudicial. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was allowed, the guilty verdict was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.