R v Bosscher

In the case of R v Bosscher, the appellant was convicted following a lengthy jury trial of various counts of fraud and record falsification. The appellant, an experienced criminal solicitor, had chosen to represent himself during the trial due to his belief that he would not be eligible for Legal Aid. During the trial, the appellant experienced a relapse of his pre-existing major depressive disorder, resulting in a 12-day adjournment. The appellant applied for the jury to be discharged due to the delay and his impaired capacity to continue, but the trial judge refused the application. The appellant appealed the convictions, arguing that the trial judge’s refusal to discharge the jury resulted in a miscarriage of justice, particularly in light of the lengthy adjournment and his impaired state.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury constituted an error that led to a miscarriage of justice and whether the trial judge's failure to mention certain evidence during the summing up further prejudiced the appellant. The court had to consider whether the trial judge's discretion to refuse the discharge application was exercised properly and whether any omissions in the summing up had a prejudicial effect on the trial’s outcome.

The court found that the trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The court reasoned that the trial judge was in the best position to assess the potential prejudice caused by the adjournment and the effectiveness of any directions to mitigate it. The court also determined that the trial judge's omission of certain evidence during the summing up did not reinforce any prejudice caused by the adjournment. The omission was not deemed significant enough to warrant a new trial. However, the court concluded that the overall trial circumstances, including the lengthy adjournment and the appellant’s impaired state, warranted setting aside the convictions and ordering a new trial.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the respondent's application to adduce further evidence, allow the appeal, set aside the convictions on all counts, and order a new trial on all counts.