R v Cobby

The case of R v Cobby involved the appellant, who was found guilty of one count of murder. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence, raising several grounds, including the submission that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, that the prosecution failed to impartially present all credible evidence, that there was a miscarriage of justice due to misdirection or non-direction by the trial judge, that there was an improper admission or rejection of evidence, and that fresh DNA evidence was available that had not been presented at trial. The central issue for the court was whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented at trial.

The court considered the appellant's arguments that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, noting that the case against the appellant was circumstantial and that the defence hypothesis of an unknown assailant was not advanced at trial. The court held that the appellant's hypotheses were based on evidence adduced at trial and needed to be considered in the context of all the evidence. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was open to them and was not unreasonable or insupportable. Regarding the prosecution's conduct, the court found that the inconsistencies in the witness's evidence were minor and did not affect the overall reliability of the evidence. The court also found that the trial judge's direction to the jury on drawing inferences was appropriate and did not misdirect the jury. The court held that the exclusion of the witness's identification of the hammer from a photograph did not prejudice the appellant as the evidence had probative value and any error would not have made a difference to the verdict.

The court further considered the fresh DNA evidence adduced on the hearing of the appeal. The court found that while some of the DNA evidence was favourable to the appellant, other evidence was not, and the DNA evidence before the jury remained relevantly intact. The court concluded that there was not a significant possibility that if the fresh evidence had been before the jury, the appellant would have been acquitted.

Finally, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court found that none of the grounds of appeal established a miscarriage of justice and that the verdict was properly open to the jury. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld.