R v Lowrie & Ross

In the case of R v Lowrie & Ross, the appellants were convicted and sentenced for various criminal offences. The dispute reached the court where the appellants challenged their convictions on multiple grounds. The central issues in the appeal pertained to the admissibility of evidence, the jury's instructions, and the sufficiency of the evidence to corroborate the guilt of the appellants.

The court examined whether the jury had been properly instructed regarding the specific acts of the appellants that were alleged to constitute the criminal offences. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge had erred in failing to direct the jury to exercise caution when using the evidence of co-accused. The appellants argued that the trial judge should have warned the jury about the potential unreliability of accomplice evidence. The court also reviewed whether there was an error in the trial judge's refusal to admit evidence that would have disproven a co-accused's denial of requesting indemnity when making a statement to the police. Furthermore, the appellants contended that the trial judge should have allowed cross-examination of a witness using sealed material under section 13A of a relevant Act.

The court found that there were no grounds to overturn the convictions. The jury had been adequately instructed, and the evidence presented was sufficient to support the convictions. The court held that the trial judge did not err in the manner in which evidence was admitted or in the instructions given to the jury. Consequently, the appeals against the convictions were dismissed.