R v Sridharan

The appellant, Sridharan, was convicted of extortion against his former employer, leading to an appeal against the decision. The appellant had written letters to his former employer, alleging a series of breaches of laws and demanding payment of money. He claimed that certain documentary exhibits were not properly proved during his trial. The respondent argued that the appeal should be allowed on the basis that there might have been a miscarriage of justice due to the appellant's potential lack of fitness to plead or be tried. A psychiatrist's report indicated that the appellant had a disorder that impaired his ability to competently reflect on evidence and other relevant material, including the basis of the charge. The appellant was unrepresented at the time of the trial, and the court of criminal appeal is obliged to allow an appeal if there is a real and substantial question regarding the accused’s fitness.

The court was required to decide whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the appellant's potential lack of fitness to plead or be tried. The court considered the psychiatrist's report, which stated that the appellant had a disorder that limited his capacity to competently reflect on evidence and other relevant material, including the basis of the charge. The court also took into account the appellant's unrepresented status during the trial. The court held that it was obliged to allow the appeal if there was a real and substantial question to be considered about the accused’s fitness. The court found that there was a real and substantial question regarding the appellant's fitness, and therefore a miscarriage of justice might have occurred.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The appellant had been sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment with immediate parole, but had breached his parole and spent approximately nine months in custody at the time of hearing the appeal. The court did not order a re-trial, as it considered that the miscarriage of justice was sufficient grounds to set aside the conviction. The court's decision was delivered ex tempore on 24 July 2017, and the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.