R v Bedi No. Sccrm-99-167 Judgment No. S467

[1999] SASC 467

R v BEDI
[1999] SASC 467

Court of Criminal Appeal:  Doyle CJ, Williams and Martin JJ (

1 DOYLE CJ, WILLIAMS AND MARTIN JJ.  This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction.  The appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury for the offence of murder.  A notice of appeal and application for leave to appeal was filed on 18 August 1999.  Although the notice indicates that leave to appeal against conviction is sought, the notice does not indicate the grounds of appeal in respect of which leave to appeal is sought. 
2 The application came before Bleby J on 29 September 1999.  He refused leave to appeal on all grounds of appeal.  By application dated 29 September 1999 the applicant applied to have determined by the Full Court his application for leave to appeal against conviction. 
3 The application was considered by the court in private, pursuant to Rule 15 (7) of the Supreme Court Criminal Appeal Rules 1996.  The court for those purposes comprised the Chief Justice, Williams J and me. 
4 We are unanimously of the opinion that leave to appeal should be granted on ground 1. 
5 As to ground 2, we are unanimously of the opinion that leave to appeal should be refused.  This ground complains of the refusal of the trial judge to exclude certain evidence.  Our view is that the evidence was admissible and there is no reasonable prospect of the judge's decision being overturned. 
6 We are unanimously of the opinion that leave to appeal should be refused on ground 3.  This ground complains of a decision by the trial judge not to grant an extension of time for the making of an application for a trial by judge alone.  In our view, no arguable ground has been identified for overturning the judge's decision in that respect. 
7 We are unanimously of the opinion that leave to appeal should be refused on ground 4.  Our view is that the complaint about the illustration that the judge used in the course of his summing up is lacking in any substance. 
8 We are unanimously of the opinion that leave to appeal should be refused on ground 5.  The complaint relates to the decision of the judge to allow the jury to see photographs of the deceased after his death.  In our opinion, no arguable ground for overturning the judge's decision has been identified. 
9 We are unanimously of the opinion that leave to appeal should be refused on ground 6.  The submission in relation to this ground is simply that it involves consideration of the combined weight of all of the other grounds.  As those matters, apart from ground 1, are lacking in any substance, it follows that there is no substance in ground 6.  Should ground 1 be made out, the court will have the power to set aside the conviction without resort to ground 6. 
10 Accordingly, the order of the court is that leave to appeal be granted on ground 1, but that leave to appeal be refused on grounds 2 to 6.

2