R v Powell

This case concerned an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant, the defendant, and Latara Hunt were the only individuals with the opportunity to inflict the fatal injuries upon the deceased. Both the defendant and Latara Hunt had initially provided false accounts of their whereabouts. The central dispute revolved around the credibility of the defendant's evidence and the extent to which Latara Hunt's own evidence had been adequately scrutinised by the trial judge, particularly in light of the defendant's defence which suggested Latara Hunt may have been responsible for the injuries.

The legal issues before the appellate court included whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the defendant's credibility by finding his evidence to be a "recent invention" designed to shift blame. Furthermore, the court considered whether the trial judge had failed to adequately scrutinise Latara Hunt's evidence, particularly concerning her opportunity to inflict the fatal injuries, and whether this constituted a flawed approach to the evidence. The court also examined whether the trial judge had sufficiently considered all relevant factors when addressing the possibility of manslaughter, beyond just the impact of alcohol and drugs on the formation of intent.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's rejection of the defendant's credibility on the ground of recent invention was an error, and that this error compromised his review of the defendant's evidence. The court also agreed that the trial judge's conclusion that Latara Hunt had no opportunity to inflict the injuries was not open on the evidence and was a consequence of rejecting the defendant's testimony. The court determined that the trial judge's assessment of Latara Hunt's evidence was flawed and that her credibility was indeed critical to the central issues. While acknowledging the trial judge's awareness of broader issues concerning manslaughter, the court ultimately concluded that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict of guilty and the sentence imposed, and ordered a retrial. The appellate court held that the evidence was capable of supporting a finding of guilt, and that a proper assessment of credibility could only be made by a court that had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses. Therefore, an acquittal was not appropriate.