R v Martin

The appellant, Martin, was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on a woman. He appealed against the conviction and sought an extension of time to do so. The appeal hinged on the safety of the verdict and the admissibility and weight of several pieces of evidence, including blood DNA evidence, an explanation for the presence of the appellant's blood at the scene, an alibi, evidence of good character, and confession evidence. The court was required to determine whether the verdict was unsafe and, if so, whether the appeal should be allowed despite the lateness of the application.

The court considered whether the verdict was unsafe and whether the lateness of the application for an extension of time should prevent the appeal from being heard. The court noted that the evidence of the appellant's blood at the scene, coupled with the lack of any explanation, was significant. However, the court also considered the explanation for the presence of the blood, the alibi, and the evidence of good character. The court concluded that, although the evidence against the appellant was strong, it was not so compelling as to render the verdict unsafe. The court also found that the lateness of the application for an extension of time was a factor to be considered, but it was not determinative. Ultimately, the court decided that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for an extension of time. The court found that, while the evidence against the appellant was strong, it was not so compelling as to render the verdict unsafe. The court also found that the lateness of the application for an extension of time was a factor to be considered, but it was not determinative. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed and the conviction upheld.