Romolo v R

The appeal by Romolo against his conviction and sentence was heard in the High Court. The applicant had been convicted of a number of serious offences and had appealed on the basis that the trial judge had failed to adequately protect him from prejudice in presenting his case at trial. The applicant had previously made a successful application for a permanent stay of proceedings on the basis of threats made against him and his family. The primary judge dismissed the application for a stay, finding that the threats had been addressed by the court's procedural directions. The applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence on the basis that the trial judge had failed to have regard to the prejudice caused by the threats in the presentation of his case at trial.
The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had failed to adequately protect the applicant from prejudice in presenting his case at trial and whether this failure was a ground for allowing an appeal against conviction or sentence. The court found that the trial judge had taken all reasonable steps to protect the applicant from prejudice in presenting his case at trial and that there was no failure on the part of the trial judge to protect the applicant from prejudice. The court found that the applicant's case was not made out and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in accordance with the law and that there was no error on the part of the trial judge in dismissing the application for a stay of proceedings. The court found that there was no ground for allowing an appeal against conviction or sentence.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and sentences were affirmed. The court found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in accordance with the law and that there was no error on the part of the trial judge in dismissing the application for a stay of proceedings. The court found that the applicant had not established any ground for allowing an appeal against conviction or sentence. The court found that the trial judge had taken all reasonable steps to protect the applicant from prejudice in presenting his case at trial and that there was no failure on the part of the trial judge to protect the applicant from prejudice. The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and sentences were affirmed.