An application made to have J Joy’s Report as evidence in an Appeal

An application, heard before Judge Toogood, was made to have Julian Joy’s Report included as evidence in an Appeal of Judge Davis’s decision of May 2011 that a Rehearing not be granted.
Principles for admission of further evidence on appeal are
1: Freshness & could it have been available at the 1st hearing
2: Credibility & cogency or having the power to convince.
3: Whether the new evidence is such that it might reasonably have lead to a finding of not guilty if called at a new trial.
If Judge Toogood concluded that the evidence was fresh, J Joy would’ve been available for cross- examination before the Judge hearing the substantive appeal who would then make a determination as to credibility & cogency in the context of the appeal as a whole covering the issue of whether the evidence was such that it might reasonably have led to the dismissal of the charges against the appellant.
Judge Toogood noted that for the purposes of conducting his defence when he was unrepresented by counsel, the appellant acted as both advocate & expert witness – confident because of his knowledge & experience that the Judge would accept his version of events & that he would be vindicated. The appellant says the judge was confronted with direct conflicts between his views & those of the prosecution expert & that it was a mistake of the Judge in the circumstances to prefer Mr Young’s opinion. The appellant now argues that in order to avoid an injustice he should be permitted to put Mr Joy’s reports in evidence on the hearing of his appeal.
Judge Toogood also noted that Judge Davis had said in the commissioning of Mr Joy’s report that “Justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done”
Noted too, was the assessment by Mr Young of Mr Joy’s report that there was nothing in it that would change his views that Classique was at fault & a collision was avoided only by the action of throwing Seaway into reverse.
The decision of Judge Davis is repeated with all of its errors.
Although Mr Joy had been prevented by Mark Davies from discussing matters at the trial he did not believe that Mr Joy was unavailable as an expert witness to Mr Bolton at the hearing before Judge Davis & thought that Mr Bolton could’ve sought an adjournment so that he could call additional evidence from Mr Joy which would’ve been allowed given the sympathetic attitude of Judge Davis.
Judge Toogood therefore concludes Mr Joy’s evidence fails the freshness test so Credibility & cogency don’t need to be considered but as Mr Joy’s reports are highly critical of Mr Young to the extent of accusing him of acting unprofessionally & misleading the Court, critical of Judge Davis’s findings of fact & critical also of MNZ for failing to meet appropriate professional standards of investigation, his partisan evidence may not be substantially helpful to the Court leading to the dismissal of charges.
Judge Davis’s decision based on Mr Young’s evidence is again referred to & the application to allow Mr Joy’s report to be included at the appeal is declined as it was not fresh but nothing in in Judge Toogood’s decision, he says, is intended to impinge upon the consideration of whether there are grounds, other than those which might have been provided by Mr Joy’s evidence, to set aside the conviction.

They could go on the Jeremy Kyle show ?
GirlLying (26)

A reasonable indication they have ?
Iswear (26)

Why did he think he could get away with it ?
Clinton (26)

Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge