R v Moar

The case of *R v Moar* concerned appeals against conviction. The specific nature of the dispute and the charges brought against the appellant are not detailed in the provided text, but the appeals were heard by Gray, Sulan, and Nicholson JJ.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge, Chivell DCJ, had erred in his assessment of certain exculpatory statements made by the defendant. This included whether the prosecution was entitled to refer to inconsistencies and implausibility in these statements, and whether the trial judge was justified in giving such material little or no weight in light of other evidence presented at trial. The appeals also touched upon the principles of appeal, specifically concerning points not taken below and the failure to object to alleged judicial bias during the trial proceedings.

The court, in dismissing the appeals, reasoned that it was a necessary part of the judicial process for a judge to assess the credibility and reliability of exculpatory statements, whether made in or out of court or from earlier proceedings. The prosecution was therefore permitted to highlight inconsistencies and implausibility in these statements. The court found that it was open to the trial judge to conclude that these statements held little or no weight, particularly as this conclusion was supported by other evidence presented during the trial. The judges agreed with the reasoning of Gray J.

The appeals were dismissed.