Connor v The Queen; KC v The Queen

Connor and KC were convicted by the trial judge for their involvement in an incident where two victims were wounded with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. They were part of a group that allegedly invaded the victims' unit. The Crown's case rested on the premise that all members of the group entered the unit or its balcony. The crux of the Crown's case was that the same group of males who were seen walking up the street were also the ones who returned and entered the balcony area. The appellants argued that the Crown had not excluded the reasonable hypothesis that at least one group member either did not return down the street or did not enter the balcony area.

The court was tasked with determining whether the verdict was unreasonable and if the Crown had indeed excluded all reasonable hypotheses that were favourable to the appellants. The appeal focused on the sufficiency of the evidence presented and the likelihood of the Crown's hypothesis. The court had to consider whether the jury's decision was open to them based on the evidence, and whether there were reasonable alternative explanations that the jury could have accepted.

The court found that the verdict was unreasonable as the Crown had not excluded the possibility that at least one group member did not return down the street or did not enter the balcony area. This reasonable hypothesis undermined the Crown's case, leading to the conclusion that the appeal should be allowed. The court also noted that the appellants had previously been refused legal aid, causing their appeals to lapse. However, the court granted an extension of time for the appeals to proceed, ultimately allowing the appeal. The judgment in respect of the co-offenders, who were determined to have faced the same issue, was considered in the analysis, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of that analysis.