The Queen v Livingston

The Queen v Livingston was a case heard before the court, where the defendants, Kenner and Livingston, sought leave to appeal against the Judge's directions. The central issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to grant such leave, specifically in relation to the admissibility of evidence under section 344A of the Crimes Act 1961. The defendants contested the Judge's directions, particularly paragraphs 1(ii) and 2, arguing that the Judge's decision did not pertain to the admissibility of evidence, thus questioning the applicability of section 379A(1)(aa) of the Crimes Act.

The court examined the statutory framework governing appeals in criminal cases, noting the specific provisions for appeals against conviction, questions of law, and pre-trial orders. It was determined that the right to appeal from the Judge's directions, if any, would be found under section 379A, specifically section 379A(1)(aa), which pertains to orders under section 344A. However, the court found that the Judge's directions did not address admissibility issues but rather directed the defence to make an application under section 344A. Consequently, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from these directions, as the appeal was not based on the refusal to make an order, but rather on the order itself which did not concern admissibility.

The court's decision was grounded in the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the specific nature of the Judge's directions. It held that the Judge's orders did not pertain to admissibility, and thus, did not fall within the scope of section 379A(1)(aa) of the Crimes Act. The case distinguished itself from previous rulings by noting that the mode of giving evidence cannot be equated with admissibility in the present context.

Ultimately, the court denied the application for leave to appeal, affirming that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal based on the nature of the Judge's directions.