Ankur v The Queen

The applicant, Ankur, was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and appealed both his conviction and sentence. The case was heard in the court of appeal. The central issue for the court was whether the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the applicant's expert evidence was erroneous and whether it amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the applicant's psychological state as a mitigating factor.

The court examined whether the trial judge's direction to the jury that the applicant's expert evidence became irrelevant upon the rejection of his explanation for the accident was an error that reversed the onus of proof or equated the applicant's explanation to a fanciful possibility. The court referenced previous cases, such as McKell v The Queen and Mathieson v The Queen, to determine if the trial judge's direction was appropriate. The court found that the direction was indeed improper as it placed an undue burden on the applicant and diminished the weight of his expert evidence. This misdirection potentially led to a miscarriage of justice, as the jury may have been misled in their consideration of the evidence.

Upon finding that the misdirection was a significant error, the court allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial. The court also reviewed the sentence imposed, considering the applicant's psychological state as a mitigating factor. After careful deliberation, the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, thus no alteration to the sentence was necessary.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal against the conviction, order a retrial, and maintain the sentence as imposed by the trial judge. The court emphasised the importance of proper jury directions in criminal trials to ensure a fair and just outcome.