R v Seller; R v McCarthy

In this matter, the respondents, Seller and McCarthy, were convicted of various drug offences and appealed against their convictions. The issue for determination was whether it was an abuse of process to permit the admission of evidence that contradicted findings of fact made in a previous determination with regard to different orders sought. The court held that the trial judge was correct to admit evidence that contradicted findings of fact made in a previous determination, as the evidence was relevant to the issues before the court and did not amount to an abuse of process. The court found that the evidence was not inadmissible simply because it contradicted findings of fact made in a previous determination. The trial judge had the discretion to determine whether the evidence was relevant and whether its admission would amount to an abuse of process.

The court emphasised that the trial judge must consider the nature and extent of the contradiction, the relevance of the evidence to the issues before the court, and whether the admission of the evidence would cause unfair prejudice to the parties. The court found that the trial judge had exercised their discretion correctly in admitting the evidence in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The court held that the trial judge was correct to admit evidence that contradicted findings of fact made in a previous determination, as the evidence was relevant to the issues before the court and did not amount to an abuse of process. The court found that the evidence was not inadmissible simply because it contradicted findings of fact made in a previous determination. The trial judge had the discretion to determine whether the evidence was relevant and whether its admission would amount to an abuse of process.