R v Nuttall

The appellant, Mr. Nuttall, appealed against his conviction for 36 counts of receiving secret commissions as an agent. The Crown had argued that the appellant and the payer had a common purpose, while the appellant contended that the evidence was irrelevant. The appellant also argued that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on certain matters, and that the summing up was confusing and too long. The appellant further argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court had to decide whether the Crown had established reasonable grounds for inferring a common purpose between the appellant and the payer, and whether the evidence was admissible for that purpose. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the appellant's request amounted to a miscarriage of justice, and whether inaccuracies in the schedule provided to the jury produced a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court had to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the Crown had established reasonable grounds for inferring a common purpose between the appellant and the payer, and that the evidence was admissible for that purpose. The court also found that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the appellant's request did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and that the inaccuracies in the schedule did not produce a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the summing up, while long, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.