The proviso under s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 may be applied even where there are multiple serious misdirections (on onus of proof for mistake, Browne v Dunn, and taxation law), provided the errors are not so fundamental as to deprive the accused of a chance of acquittal fairly open, and the appellate court is satisfied on an independent assessment of the evidence that the accused would inevitably have been found guilty. In sentencing for complex fraud, delay caused by the inherent difficulty of investigating and proving the offences, where the investigation is conducted with reasonable expedition, will attract limited weight as a mitigating factor, particularly where the offender has not demonstrated progress towards rehabilitation during the period of delay.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 25 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 25 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.