Judicial precedents in criminal appeals are that where a conviction is supported by the clearest evidence the appellate court would not quash the conviction on grounds of irregularity in pleadings or defect in the charge or other matters. In the case of King versus Thompson [1914] 2 KB 99 the accused had been charged with incest and convicted. On appeal it was held than the indictment was bad in that more than one offence was charged in each count. Isaacs CJ held that they dismissed the appeal on the ground that: ―even if assuming that the objection raised after plea to the defect in the form of indictment was not taken too late and that the Appellant could have moved in arrest of judgment, no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, and that we were, therefore, bound to give effect to the proviso in section 4 subsection 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907, which provides as follows: "provided the court may, notwithstanding that there are of the opinion that the point raised in the Appeal might be decided in favour of the Appellant, dismiss the appeal if they consider that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.‖ If we had thought that any embarrassment or prejudice had been caused to the Appellant by the presentment of the indictment in this form we should have felt bound to quash the convictions whatever our views might be as to the merits of the case. It must not be thought that we are deciding that such objections should not be allowed to prevail either at the trial or in this court. An indictment so framed might undoubtedly hamper the defence, and if it did we should give effect to the objection. There are also other objections to an indictment which must be held good at any time, as, for example, an objection on the ground of want of jurisdiction. One of the objects of section 4 was to prevent the quashing of a conviction upon a mere technicality which had caused no embarrassment or prejudice. Whilst giving the right of appeal upon any wrong decision of any question of law, the object of the legislature was that justice should be done in spite of the wrong decision and that the court should not interfere if it came to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the wrong decision, there had been no substantial miscarriage of justice. The court must always proceed with a caution