R v Margaria
[2003] WASCA 253
•24 OCTOBER 2003
R -v- MARGARIA [2003] WASCA 253
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 253 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 24/10/2003 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:51/2003 | 15 SEPTEMBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER J PARKER J EM HEENAN J | 15/09/03 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Applications for leave to appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE QUEEN JOHN GEOFFREY MARGARIA NABIL MICHEL SADEK |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Prosecution appeals Applications for leave to appeal Appeals from acquittal at trial before Judge alone Trial Judge upheld submission of no case to answer by each accused Indictments for fraud and attempted fraud Sections 409(1)(c), s 552, s 554 and s 688(2)(ba) of the Criminal Code Sufficiency of evidence to constitute a case to answer Turns on its own facts Applications for leave to appeal refused |
Legislation: | Criminal Code, s 409(1)(c), s 552, s 554, s 688(2)(ba) |
Case References: | Benson v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 520 Bond v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 213 Byrnes v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 1 Davern v Messel (1984) 155 CLR 21 Malvaso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Wang [2003] HCA 11; (2003) 77 ALJR 786 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Udechuku [1982] WAR 21 Rohde v Director of Public Prosecutions (1986) 161 CLR 119 The Queen v Carroll [2002] HCA 55 Balcombe v De Simoni (1972) 126 CLR 576 In Re London and Globe Finance Corporation Ltd [1903] 1 Ch 728 Infirri v The Queen (1981) 5 A Crim R 133 Lewis v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 1 Matthews v The Queen (2001) 24 WAR 438 Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482 R v Cooper [1877] 2 QBD 510 R v English (1872) 12 Cox 171 R v Gibson (1929) 30 SR (NSW) 282 R v Kuff [1962] VR 578 R v Lince (1873) 12 Cox 451 R v Lorkin (1995) 15 WAR 499 R v Olan & Ors (1978) 41 CCC (2nd) 145 R v Rechichi [1999] WASC 221 R v Theroux (1993) 100 DLR (4th) 624 R v Turner [2001] WASCA 344 Schokker v The Queen [2001] WASCA 84 Waterhouse v Pas (1998) 103 A Crim R 511 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- MARGARIA [2003] WASCA 253 CORAM : STEYTLER J
- PARKER J
EM HEENAN J
PUBLISHED : 24 OCTOBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 51 of 2003 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN
- Applicant
AND
JOHN GEOFFREY MARGARIA
Respondent
- Applicant
AND
NABIL MICHEL SADEK
Respondent
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Prosecution appeals - Applications for leave to appeal - Appeals from acquittal at trial before Judge alone - Trial Judge upheld submission of no case to answer by each accused - Indictments for fraud and attempted fraud - Sections 409(1)(c), s 552, s 554 and s 688(2)(ba) of the Criminal Code - Sufficiency of evidence to constitute a case to answer - Turns on its own facts - Applications for leave to appeal refused
Legislation:
Criminal Code, s 409(1)(c), s 552, s 554, s 688(2)(ba)
Result:
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
CCA 51 of 2003
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr R E Cock QC
Respondent : Mr R A Mazza
Solicitors:
Applicant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent : Mazza & Mazza
CCA 52 of 2003
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr R E Cock QC
Respondent : Mr S A Shirrefs SC
Solicitors:
Applicant : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent : Laurie Levy & Associates
(Page 3)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Benson v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 520
Bond v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 213
Byrnes v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 1
Davern v Messel (1984) 155 CLR 21
Malvaso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Wang [2003] HCA 11; (2003) 77 ALJR 786
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Udechuku [1982] WAR 21
Rohde v Director of Public Prosecutions (1986) 161 CLR 119
The Queen v Carroll [2002] HCA 55
Case(s) also cited:
Balcombe v De Simoni (1972) 126 CLR 576
In Re London and Globe Finance Corporation Ltd [1903] 1 Ch 728
Infirri v The Queen (1981) 5 A Crim R 133
Lewis v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 1
Matthews v The Queen (2001) 24 WAR 438
Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482
R v Cooper [1877] 2 QBD 510
R v English (1872) 12 Cox 171
R v Gibson (1929) 30 SR (NSW) 282
R v Kuff [1962] VR 578
R v Lince (1873) 12 Cox 451
R v Lorkin (1995) 15 WAR 499
R v Olan & Ors (1978) 41 CCC (2nd) 145
R v Rechichi [1999] WASC 221
R v Theroux (1993) 100 DLR (4th) 624
R v Turner [2001] WASCA 344
Schokker v The Queen [2001] WASCA 84
Waterhouse v Pas (1998) 103 A Crim R 511
(Page 4)
1 STEYTLER J: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for decision of EM Heenan J. I am in entire agreement with his reasons for refusing each application for leave to appeal. However, I prefer to reserve for another day consideration of the questions which were raised as regards the existence of a right of appeal by the prosecution in a case of this kind and ancillary issues, it being unnecessary to decide any of those issues in this case.
2 PARKER J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Heenan J. In so far as his Honour considers the merits of these two (in truth) applications for leave to appeal, what his Honour has written reflects the substance of the reasons which led me to join in the decisions of the Court, given on 15 September 2003, by which leave to appeal was refused in each case.
3 With respect to the question of the competence of the two applications, I agree with his Honour that it was unnecessary to deal with that question in the present case. I would not wish to express any view with respect to the merits of that question, or with respect to the principles which may guide its determination should the matter arise for decision at some future time.
4 EM HEENAN J: John Geoffrey Margaria and Nabil Michel Sadek were each charged on indictment with a series of offences of fraud or attempted fraud contrary to the provisions of s 409(1)(c), s 552 and s 554 of the Criminal Code. The indictment contained 21 counts of fraud and one count of attempted fraud against each accused making 22 counts in all. The alleged offences were said to have occurred during various periods, but all within the range of 30 July 1998 and 15 September 1998. Each of the alleged offences related to a false representation said to have been made to various investors in order to raise money for the purchase of six adjoining lots of land (approximately one acre in total) near the corner of Wellington, Plain and Bronte Streets, East Perth, on the basis that it was suitable for development by the construction of a modern multi storey set of apartments.
5 Both accused had elected to be tried by a Judge alone, pursuant to s 651A of the Code and the Crown consented to the trial proceeding without a jury. Accordingly, both respondents were presented for trial before his Honour Judge O'Sullivan DCJ in the District Court of Western Australia on 18 March 2003 and pleaded not guilty. The trial proceeded on 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26 and 27 March with evidence being presented
(Page 5)
- for the prosecution. On 25 March the cases for the prosecution were completed and counsel for each accused then submitted that the evidence adduced for the Crown did not make out a case for either accused to answer. Lengthy submissions by counsel were then heard in support of, and in opposition to, the no case submissions and on 27 March the learned trial Judge gave reasons for his decision to uphold the no case submissions and directed that judgments of acquittal should be entered against each accused.
6 No challenge is made by the Crown on these appeals to the principles or the legal tests which his Honour expressed and applied with regard to the determination of a submission of no case to answer in a criminal trial but, rather, the grounds of appeal relied upon by the prosecution assert that his Honour made errors of law and of fact in relation to the determination of whether cases for alleged fraud or attempted fraud were established in the particular circumstances of these prosecutions. The decision of O'Sullivan DCJ resulted in verdicts of acquittal being entered on each of the 22 counts alleged against each respondent. The notices of appeal in this case challenge those judgments on 20 of the 22 charges, but not in relation to count 16 or 17.
7 Mr R E Cock QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia, accepted that each of the grounds of appeal relating to the 20 verdicts of acquittal which were challenged involved a question of fact alone or a question of mixed law and fact so that leave of this Court to appeal was necessary under s 688(2)(b)(a)(ii) of the Code. Hence, this Court was hearing and determining applications for leave to appeal but did so on the basis that the applications for leave and the proposed appeal should be fully argued together so that if leave to appeal were to be granted the appeals could be determined concurrently. At the end of the submissions for the appellant on each appeal, the court was unanimously of the opinion that the applications for leave to appeal should be refused and thereupon dismissed the applications indicating that reasons for that decision would be given in due course. These are the reasons for that decision.
Applications for leave to appeal
8 The applications for leave to appeal were argued by the Crown on the basis that s 688(2)(ba) of the Code conferred a full right of appeal upon the prosecution from a verdict of acquittal after a trial on indictment before a Judge alone under Ch LXIVA of the Code. The respondent Sadek, in written submissions filed by his counsel, directly challenged that proposition submitting that no such right of appeal, or alternatively no
(Page 6)
- effective right of appeal in such circumstances, was conferred upon the prosecution by the Code. The learned Director submitted to the court that, as far as he was aware, this was the first occasion in which the prosecution had attempted to exercise such a right of appeal in this State and that he was not aware of any previous authority which affirmed the existence of such a right of appeal as was being asserted or which addressed the issues raised by the respondent Sadek.
9 Although the challenge to the existence of such a right of appeal was obviously a preliminary and fundamental issue in these proceedings, because of the way the appeals were argued, it was unnecessary for the court to deal with it directly because, as set out below, the court was satisfied that, on the facts, there was no basis to doubt the correctness of the decision of the learned trial Judge in upholding the submissions of no case to answer. Accordingly, the question of whether or not there is a right of appeal or effective right of appeal, by the prosecution from a decision to acquit an accused by a Judge conducting a trial alone under Ch LXIVA, remains open and may need to be determined on some future occasion. Nothing in these reasons should be construed as an affirmation of the existence of the right of appeal asserted by the Crown in this case.
10 The reasons for this reservation are that a criminal trial does not include any subsequent proceedings by appeal or by application for leave to appeal and statutory provisions relating to the rights of the parties at trial and the conduct of the trial do not, in the absence of express statutory provision, apply to proceedings on applications for leave to appeal or any appeal – Byrnes v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 1 and Bond v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 213. Furthermore, statutory provisions conferring a right of appeal on the prosecution in criminal cases, whether only in respect of a sentence imposed, or generally, are construed strictly because of the unusual nature of a prosecution appeal. Such an appeal, of necessity, puts the respondent or a convicted accused in jeopardy for a second time, either in respect of the issue of alleged guilt or, in the case of conviction, in jeopardy of a more severe penalty and its effect upon his interests and liberty after satisfying the sentence first imposed: Davern v Messel (1984) 155 CLR 21 at 65 – 68; Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 at 636 – 637; The Queen v Carroll [2002] HCA 55. Hence, the question arises as to whether the provisions of s 651C(4) or (5) of the Code, on their proper interpretation, should be construed as confined to the conduct of the trial before a Judge alone and, therefore, as not extending to any appeal or application for leave to appeal in such a case under s 688(2)(ba). The unresolved submission by the respondent Sadek was to the effect that only s 688(2)(ba) was capable of being relied up as conferring any right of
(Page 7)
- appeal for the prosecution in this case and that the only powers which this Court had in hearing and determining such an appeal were to be found in s 690 which, in express terms, did not appear to contemplate any relief or confer any power to make any order by this Court in the case of an appeal from an acquittal at a trial before a Judge alone. These issues, and the associated issue of identifying the criteria upon which leave should be granted to the Crown to appeal in such a case, if a right of appeal with leave does exist, remain for consideration on some future occasion.
11 In Davern v Messel (supra) Gibbs CJ held, following Benson v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942] AC 520 at 526, that it is an elementary principle that an acquittal made by a court of competent jurisdiction and made within its jurisdiction, although erroneous in point of fact, cannot as a rule be questioned and brought before any other court. It also decided that the general words of a statute conferring a right to appeal against an order of a court of summary jurisdiction on "any party against whom an order is made for payment of any penal or other sum" did not suffice to give a complainant a right of appeal against an order of a court of summary jurisdiction which had dismissed the complaint and ordered the complainant to pay costs; see also Mason and Brennan JJ at 47 – 48, Murphy J at 63 and Deane J at 66 - 67. In Rohde v Director of Public Prosecutions (1986) 161 CLR 119 the decision was that the language of s 68(2) of the Judiciary Act, when applied to s 567A of the Crimes Act (Clth) conferred a right of appeal upon the Attorney General of the Commonwealth against sentences imposed upon convictions for offences against a law of the Commonwealth, but no question arose as to the scope of the powers or remedies available to the appeal court in that case.
12 The restraints which attends the exercise of jurisdiction to deal with prosecution appeals from decisions following a trial on indictment were outlined by Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ in Bond v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 213 at 223. The history and role of the rule against double jeopardy in these and associated circumstances have been canvassed by the English Law Commission in "Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals" Law Com No 267 Cmd 5048 (London: TSO 2001) (see and "Double Jeopardy Law Reform: A Criminal Justice Commentary" by Paul Roberts (2002) 65 Mod Law Rev at 393, and was outlined in this Court in 1982 by Wickham J in R v Udechuku [1982] WAR 21.
13 Even if a full right of appeal, by leave of the court, exists in a case such as the present, the necessity for leave to be granted raises separate
(Page 8)
- and distinct considerations, apart from any error in the decision of the Judge at trial. These are emphasised in Malvaso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227 by Mason CJ, Brennan and Gaudron JJ at 232 – 233 and by Deane and McHugh JJ at 233 – 235. No attempt was made by the Director in this case to identify or satisfy any separate requirements for the grant of leave to appeal beyond the arguments submitting that the decision challenged was wrong.
14 The relief sought by the Director in this case, in the event that leave to appeal were granted and the appeals succeeded, was for orders setting aside the acquittals and directing a completely new trial before a different Judge. This also raises questions about the source and nature of the power conferred on this Court to give such special relief. A power to give directions as to the conduct of a new trial after an acquittal must be found to be conferred directly on this Court – Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Wang [2003] HCA 11; (2003) 77 ALJR 786 and where it exists the Court must consider whether or not it should be exercised in the particular case – (Wang's case (supra) per Gleeson CJ at [17]; McHugh J at [43] – [45]; and Gummow and Hayne JJ at [60] – [74]). No case was made out by the applicant to show whether the powers of this Court under s 691 apply in the case of an appeal under s 688(2)(ba) or why, in the event of a successful appeal, an order should not be made directing a continuation of the trial before the learned trial Judge which had ended when the no case submissions were upheld.
The merits of the proposed appeals
15 The case for the Crown at trial and on the applications for leave to appeal was that numerous investors were induced to pay money to an agent, Global Finance Group Pty Ltd, to be invested on loan to Newrose Holdings Pty Ltd secured by mortgage against the East Perth land. The money to be raised from investors was $3,750,000 which would be advanced to the borrower on a joint first mortgage, secured against the land asserted to have a value of $6,000,000. The term of the proposed loan was 12 months at an interest rate of 10.35 per cent per annum. The invitations to the investors were made by letters from Global Finance Group Pty Ltd, a representative sample of which is the letter appearing at AB 10 in both appeal books, dated 3 August 1998 from Global Finance Group Pty Ltd to Mr and Mrs P W Deague, signed for Global Finance Group Pty Ltd by a Mr Kim J Wood as director. Significantly, that letter contains the following passages which were relied upon by the Crown as constituting false representations amounting to fraud within the meaning of s 409 of the Code; namely:
(Page 9)
- "Guarantors: Nabil Michel Sadek
Net worth $12.4 million
...
"The proposed mortgagor Newrose Holdings Pty Ltd is the family development company of Mr Nabil Sadek. Mr Sadek (56 years) is a business proprietor, property trader, country hotelier and developer with 26 years business experience. Mr Sadek is in a sound financial position with a net worth of $12,474,000 with a diverse portfolio of income producing assets and investments. Mr Sadek will join in the mortgage and provide his personal guarantee to support the company's borrowings.
"Sworn valuation: $6,000,000
...
"A sworn valuation dated 22 July 1998, and held on file, values the properties collectively at $6,000,000. En Globo land value of this loan represents 62.5% of this figure. The completed project value is $36,000,000 at a cost of $18,000,000 would show a 100% profit to a developer. As previously stated Mr Sadek does not plan to develop the land but on sell the project to his Eastern States contacts."
16 The case which the Crown was advancing at the trial, and on these applications for leave to appeal, relied, essentially, on two propositions. The first was that the representation that Mr Sadek had a net worth of $12.4 million in August 1998 was false, or that neither accused had any honest belief at the time that the representation was made that this was true. Second, the prosecution contended that the representation that the properties at East Perth were worth $6,000,000 in August 1998 was also false or that neither of the accused had any honest belief that that representation was true.
17 This necessarily raised the question of the significance of the asserted sworn valuation dated 22 July 1998, referred to in the letter from Global Finance Pty Ltd of 3 August 1998, as a basis for supporting the asserted value of the land which was being offered for security particularly as it could well provide grounds for any belief by the accused men that the asserted valuation of the land was true. The evidence clearly established that a valuation report prepared for Global Finance Group Pty
(Page 10)
Ltd by Mr Ron O'Connor AVLE (Val), CPA, licensed valuer 672, had been prepared, was held on the files of Global Finance Group Pty Ltd put the en globo land value at $6,000,000 at 22 July 1998 as the current fair market value of the combined sites and on the assumption that the proposed development would receive development approval in the format outlined. Details of the format of the proposed development and of the valuation calculations conducted on a hypothetical development analysis were set out in annexures to that valuation.
18 The Director of Public Prosecutions, in his careful submissions before us, accepted that the learned trial Judge had correctly formulated the issues upon which the prosecution relied when considering the no case submissions, but went on to submit that the conclusions reached by his Honour in this regard were erroneous. The learned trial Judge, in his reasons for decision, said as follows:
"The first of the alleged deceits particularised by the Crown here was comprised of a representation clearly contained in the proposal letters that Mr Sadek had a nett worth of $12.4 million. It is for the Crown to prove that that representation was false and I am quite satisfied that there is insufficient evidence before me to sustain such a conclusion even upon the assumption that all the evidence of primary fact is considered at its strongest from the Crown point of view and upon the further assumption that all inferences reasonably open are drawn in favour of the prosecution.
In my opinion neither the statement of assets and liabilities to which attention has been drawn nor any other evidence justifies [alone] or collectively any conclusion that there was a false representation as to that nett worth of Mr Sadek at the time specified in the charges."
- There was no admission from Mr Sadek that, at the material time, his net assets were less than the amount represented, nor was there any evidence of what his net assets were at that date, whether as a result of independent identification and evaluation, or as a result of any representation made by Mr Sadek or on his behalf to bankers, lenders or to other third persons.
19 The prosecution case that the asserted value of $12.4 million for his net assets was false relied on a document, apparently signed by Mr Sadek and dated June 1998, showing gross assets of $23,085,000, liabilities of $10,611,000 and total net assets of $12,474,000 (AB 20). The list of assets included the blocks of land at Wellington Street, Perth (shown as
(Page 11)
- $6,000,000), although not then registered in Mr Sadek's name and other property at 24 Trafalgar Road, East Perth (shown as $4,630,000) which the Crown contended was over valued.
20 Putting aside the question of whether or not the East Perth property at Wellington Street was then worth $6,000,000 or not, there were other basic deficiencies in the Crown case which depended upon this list of assets and liabilities. Firstly, the document was simply found among papers on file at the offices of Global Finance Group Pty Ltd without any explanation of how it came to be there or by whom it was sent to that company. Second, although as a matter of inference, the reference to Mr Sadek's net worth as being $12,474,000 as asserted in the letter of Global Finance Group Pty Ltd of 3 August 1998 (AB 10) might be seen to have derived from this list of assets and liabilities (as the figures precisely corresponded), there was nothing to link Mr Sadek or Mr Margaria with the authorship of the letter of 3 August 1998 whether originally, or by ratification or otherwise. In short, the prosecution case did not contain any evidence to support the assertion that the representations as to Mr Sadek's net worth being $12.4 million as set out in the letter of 3 August 1998 were made with the knowledge or approval of either of the accused. Consequently, it was inevitable that the learned trial Judge should, on the evidence adduced before him, have concluded that there was no basis upon which a properly instructed jury could find that either of the accused had represented, falsely or otherwise, that at August 1998 Mr Sadek's net worth was $12.4 million.
21 The position in relation to the second representation concerning the valuation of the subject property as being $6,000,000 is similar. The learned trial Judge, in his reasons for decision, dealt with this issue as follows:
"As to the second of misrepresentation particularised by the Crown it is important to note how the matter is put by it in its letter setting out its case. Misrepresentation was said to [be]:
'a representation in the proposal letter that the value of the land was $6,000,000 in globo without further explanation'.
It follows as confirmed by the learned Crown Prosecutor that it is not the Crown's case that a figure of $6,000,000 for the land valued on an in globo basis was false. Further, the uncontradicted evidence which has been led confirms that the term 'in globo value' is a term known to valuers and used in
- (Page 12)
appropriate cases to describe a method of valuation of particular properties and Mr O'Connor was called by the Crown to say that he had adopted that method of valuation here and he had arrived at a figure of $6,000,000.
It is the failure to explain the basis of the valuation of $6,000,000 which the Crown says was deceitful. I have some difficulty with the case being framed in that way because in essence s 409 of the Code contemplates representations express or by conduct or otherwise which are false to the knowledge of the representor, but be that as it may, the difficulty which the Crown faces is this in my view. The proposal letter itself refers to a sworn valuation of $6,000,000 in a proposed loan of $3.75 million and on page 3 the following sentences appear:
'A sworn valuation dated 22 July 1998 and held on file values the properties collectively at $6,000,000. In globo land value, this loan represents 62.5% of this figure.'
In my opinion, in the light of these words, the proposal letter is incapable of being construed on any reasonable basis as falsely representing anything. It is true that the language used is not as clear as it could have been and elaboration and further explanation could have been provided but, in my opinion there is no deceit involved."
23 However, the Crown did not adduce any other valuation evidence to suggest that the property at the time was worth less than $6,000,000 nor, as already mentioned, did it seek to challenge the bona fides of the O'Connor valuation which had been maintained by Mr O'Connor when he gave evidence on oath at the trial. Accordingly, the only evidence before
(Page 13)
his Honour at the trial of the true value of the subject land in August 1998 was the opinion of Mr O'Connor that it was then worth $6,000,000 and this evidence was not challenged. It is true that his Honour was invited by the Crown, for various reasons, to discount the O'Connor valuation but there was simply no other evidence of some smaller alleged value of the land at the time. Furthermore, it was indisputably a fact that the O'Connor report putting the value of the land at the material time at $6,000,000 had been prepared and obtained by Global Finance Group Pty Ltd and was held on file so, therefore to this extent, the representations in that regard made in the letter of 3 August 1998, were clearly true.
24 For these reasons, this Court concluded that the learned trial Judge was correct in deciding that there was no basis upon which a jury, properly instructed, could conclude that there was a false and fraudulent representation by either of the accused that the value of the subject land at the time was $6,000,000. As no error of fact or law was shown to be made by the learned trial Judge in reaching these conclusions and in upholding the submissions of no case to answer made by each accused at the joint trial, it follows that there is no basis upon which a grant of leave to appeal by the prosecution should be made. The two applications for leave to appeal were, therefore, for these reasons refused.
3
20
1