Question 1

Ala was prosecuted for murder of his friend Sam. Ala admitted that they had argued and that he had punched Sam, knocking him down. However, when testifying in his own defence, he claimed that the injury that caused Sam's death occurred when Sam's head hit the corner of a table. Ala denied ever contemplating that his blow would cause death or even serious injury. Ala was acquitted.

The prosecution now wishes to prosecute Ala for manslaughter. Can this be done?

Question 2

Six elderly investors complained to the police about the loss of substantial sums of money in an investment scheme run by Stephen Slime, a lawyer, and fraud was suspected. Slime's offices were searched under a warrant and documents were seized.

Slime was subsequently prosecuted in the Supreme Court for defrauding three persons, all over the age of 80. Slime pleaded not guilty. Documents seized in the search formed a substantial part of the prosecution's case. Sleeze was represented by private counsel, Ruthless KC, a senior barrister imported from Australia for the case.

When cross-examining the complainant witnesses, Ruthless extracted admissions that they were unsure in some respects about the advice Slime had given them about the investments. Testifying in his own defence, Slime contended that the elderly investors must have misheard or misinterpreted what he said. In addition, Ruthless argued that the warrant was invalid and therefore the evidence obtained from the search should not be admitted. Fairgo J accepted this argument. Ultimately, the judge acquitted Slime.

Six months later, another charge of fraud was laid against Slime respecting the same investment scheme. The charge was of defrauding Minnie Moneybags of the equivalent of US100,000 (a great deal of money in any currency). Moneybags, an 80 year-old widow, was not one of the investors named in the earlier charges, although she was one of the people who had complained about losses and had been interviewed by the police. The case came to trial one year later. Slime pleaded not guilty. The evidence was substantially the same as at the earlier trial, including the evidence obtained from the search.

By this time, Slime was indigent and could longer afford to pay Ruthless KC or indeed any lawyer. However, he was provided counsel by legal aid: Ida Ingnue, a 24 year-old who had graduated from USP two-years previously and had been employed by legal aid for the past year.

Ingenue did not cross-examine the complaints on their recollection of what Slime had said and failed to make any challenge to the proceedings. Slime was convicted.

Slime wants to appeal his conviction. Does he have any grounds?