Disregard for the evidence in Court
by the trial judge during the summing up

The trial judge described the accuser statements in following manner :

Re : the accuser story - during summing up as instructions to the jury

3-18-24– ' … no evidence led to contradict his version …' ;

3-19-37– '' … no evidence in contradiction to his account '

Re : the accuser story - during sentencing ;

2-9 - ' I am satisfied that the account of Mr XXXXX was a truthful one '

The trial judge choose to ignore the evidence in court which was contradicting the accuser claims of having head injuries .
There was no medical evidence of him having any head injury , professional hospital staff did not observe any symptoms associated with possible strike to the head whatsoever , results of administered test were negative too.
In fact hospital records ( and later Dr McLeay ) deny any such possibility page 9,12 of the hospital records – both say clearly ' NO HEAD INJURY ' ;

Evidence of Dr McLeay in court :

2-19-27 - …' no documented injury '… ( to the head )

2-19-33 - Dr McLeay re: test of 'Glasgow Coma Scale' – it was done twice , both times negative indication of a head injury

2-21-35 - …' there is nothing documented '… ( of head injury )

2-21-45 - re: hospital records page 9 - ' that`s written by the triage nurse and I think clearly in their assessment they said there`s no head injury obvious to them when they`ve done it '

2-21-51 - re: bleeding wound …' there is nothing documented '…

2-22-10 - re: hospital records page 12 - discharge letter - …' yeah , it does say no head injury '…

2-22-45 - …' he has been asked and he does not have those symptoms '… ( of head injury )

2-22-50 - …' normally you would expect , yeah , at least one of those '…( symptoms of head injury )

2-23-23 - re: alleged beanie on the accuser head which was supposed to protect him against head injury - '…in terms of protecting against something – you know , a significant brain injury , nothing '.

2-24-24– '… force to break a bone , the same force applied to the head , there would be a good chance you would get some – at least superficial injury…' ( to the head )

The jury was given unbalanced and untrue information , the jury was not informed about the contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence and statements favourable to prosecution on critical issue were made.

- Findings contrary to the evidence available were made indicating to the jury that they should convict .

- Unfair summarising of the evidence in court supported maintaining the credibility of
the accuser before the jury and the prosecution case against me was protected .

- Such gravity of misstatement of material facts during the summing up constitutes
the miscarriage of justice .

Legal references: R v Toone (1942) 28 Cr App R 151 ;R v Harris [1951] 1KB 107; [1950] 2 A11 ER816 ; ( 1950 ) 2 TLR 739 ; 34 Cr App R 184 - A misstatement of a material fact in the summing up resulted in quashing of the conviction .