R v P, NJ (No 2)

The appeal in this case was brought by an appellant who had previously been found not guilty of attempted murder and guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Following these verdicts, the victim died as a result of the injuries sustained. The appellant was subsequently charged with murder. The central issues in this case were whether the charge of murder should be withdrawn due to the appellant's previous acquittal on the charge of attempted murder and conviction on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, whether the charge of murder constitutes an abuse of process, and if the appellant is constrained in the manner by which he may contest the prosecution case. Additionally, the court considered whether evidence establishing the fact of the conviction for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm could be used to prove the elements of murder.

The court dismissed the appeal and ruled that the plea of autrefois convict and autrefois acquit were both unsuccessful. The court held that the charge of murder does not constitute an abuse of process. Furthermore, the court found that evidence establishing the fact of the conviction for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm is not admissible to prove the elements of murder. The elements of murder must be proved by the tender of relevant probative and admissible evidence.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles that judicial determinations should be based on concrete and established situations, and that courts should not provide answers to hypothetical questions or give advisory opinions. The court found that the trial judge's decision not to grant a stay was within her discretion and fully justified in the circumstances. The court also observed that the questions reserved in this case were cast in very general terms, apparently unrelated to any facts, not even the facts in the case stated, which further indicated that they did not arise at any trial. The court concluded that the questions reserved appeared to invite an opinion on a hypothetical question, which is not suitable for judicial resolution.

No orders were made by the court in this case.