Johnson v The Queen

The matter before the court was an appeal by the appellant against his convictions of attempted murder and assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The appeal centred on the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the jury regarding the appellant's intention to kill, as well as the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury on the definition of "attempt" and on alternative counts including grievous bodily harm, criminal negligence, and dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. Additionally, the appeal raised concerns about the breakdown of the relationship between the appellant and his barrister and the barrister's failure to follow the appellant's instructions. Notably, the affidavit in support of the appeal, which detailed these issues, was not served on the barrister concerned.

The legal issues before the court included whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's intention to kill, and whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the definition of "attempt" and the alternative counts. The court also considered whether the breakdown of the relationship between the appellant and his barrister and the barrister's failure to follow the appellant's instructions constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court addressed the procedural issue of whether the affidavit in support of the appeal, which was not served on the barrister, could be considered in the appeal.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's intention to kill, and that the trial judge's directions to the jury on the definition of "attempt" and the alternative counts were adequate. The court held that the breakdown of the relationship between the appellant and his barrister and the barrister's failure to follow the appellant's instructions did not amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice. However, the court noted that the affidavit in support of the appeal, which was not served on the barrister, could not be considered in the appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the appellant's convictions.

The court made directions as to the practice to be followed in future appeals, emphasising the importance of serving all relevant parties with affidavits in support of an appeal. The court also highlighted the need for clear and concise directions to the jury on the definition of "attempt" and the alternative counts in cases involving attempted murder and assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Finally, the court underscored the importance of maintaining a good relationship between a client and their legal representative, and the need for legal representatives to follow their client's instructions.