R v Stevens

In the case of R v Stevens, the appellant sought leave to amend the grounds of appeal and to adduce fresh evidence to support a new ground. The fresh evidence was directed solely at the credibility of a witness. The appellant was appealing against his conviction for murder, which was based on circumstantial evidence. The trial judge had not left open to the jury the possibility of a verdict of guilty or not guilty of manslaughter. The legal issues before the court included whether the fresh evidence would be admissible, whether it would have affected the jury's verdict, and whether the court should grant leave to amend the grounds of appeal.

The court held that the fresh evidence would only go to the credibility of a witness, and such evidence would not be admissible. The court further held that the evidence would not have affected the jury's verdict, as the circumstantial evidence was strong enough to support the appellant's conviction for murder. The court also held that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on a possible verdict of manslaughter did not miscarry the trial. The court agreed with the primary judge's conclusion that it was open to a reasonable jury to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to kill the deceased.

The court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for a new trial to allow the admission of fresh evidence. The court held that the appeal brought on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable should be dismissed. The court also held that the application for a new trial should be refused. The court's final orders were to refuse the application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal and to adduce fresh evidence, and to dismiss the appeal against conviction.