R v Cornwell

The appeal before the court was brought by the appellant, who had been convicted of unlawful assault causing bodily harm while in company. The complainant had sworn a victim impact statement which was not provided to the appellant until after the jury had begun deliberating. The appellant had requested the primary judge to discharge the jury as the statement contained prior inconsistent statements upon which the complainant might have been cross-examined. The primary judge had refused the application. The appellant argued that the opportunity which was denied to him could have made a difference to the verdict. The court also considered whether the sentence of six months imprisonment wholly suspended with an operational period of 18 months was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

The court considered the legal issues of whether the primary judge should have discharged the jury and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court held that the primary judge should have discharged the jury as the appellant had been denied an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant on prior inconsistent statements, which could have made a difference to the verdict. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the verdicts of the jury and ordered a retrial. The court found that the primary judge should have discharged the jury as the appellant had been denied an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant on prior inconsistent statements, which could have made a difference to the verdict. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The court ordered a retrial as the appellant had been denied a fair trial due to the late provision of the victim impact statement.

The orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the verdicts of the jury be set aside and a retrial be ordered. The court held that the primary judge should have discharged the jury as the appellant had been denied an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant on prior inconsistent statements, which could have made a difference to the verdict. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The court ordered a retrial as the appellant had been denied a fair trial due to the late provision of the victim impact statement.