R v Glattback

The appellant, Glattback, was convicted of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed against the conviction, arguing that a miscarriage of justice occurred. His conviction was based on a defence of accident, but his legal representatives did not adduce evidence of the deceased's psychiatric history, which was relevant to the case. As a result, Glattback did not give evidence, and he argued that this deprived him of a fair chance of acquittal. The court was required to determine whether the evidence of the deceased's psychiatric history was relevant and admissible, and whether the appellant lost his fair chance of acquittal due to the non-admission of this evidence.

The court considered whether the evidence of the deceased's psychiatric history was relevant and admissible. It found that the evidence was relevant because it could have shown a propensity for violence on the part of the deceased, which could have supported the appellant's defence of accident. However, the court also found that the evidence was not admissible because it was not disclosed to the defence in a timely manner, and the defence did not have an opportunity to challenge it. The court then considered whether the appellant lost his fair chance of acquittal due to the non-admission of this evidence. It found that the appellant did not lose his fair chance of acquittal because the evidence was not admissible, and even if it had been admissible, it was unlikely to have changed the outcome of the trial.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the appellant did not lose his fair chance of acquittal, and there was no miscarriage of justice. The evidence of the deceased's psychiatric history was not admissible, and even if it had been admissible, it was unlikely to have changed the outcome of the trial. The appellant's conviction and sentence were therefore upheld.