R v Bartzis

The appellant was convicted by a jury following a five-day trial of one count of grievous bodily harm. The trial judge sentenced the appellant to three years imprisonment with parole eligibility at the halfway point. The appellant represented himself and argued that he was not guilty. He now appeals against his conviction and sentence. The primary ground for appeal is that the trial judge did not provide the appellant with sufficient information to enable him to have a fair trial. The appellant further argued that the trial judge erred in determining the admissibility of certain evidence.

The court considered whether the trial judge gave the appellant sufficient information to enable him to have a fair trial and whether the trial judge erred in determining the admissibility of evidence. The court found that the trial judge provided the appellant with all the information he needed to have a fair trial. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in determining the admissibility of evidence. The evidence was either hearsay or privileged and therefore inadmissible. The court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting evidence of a conversation between the appellant and the complainant’s mother the morning after the attack.

The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence were upheld. The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the conviction and sentence be affirmed.