Makeham v Sheppard

The appellant, Makeham, appealed against his conviction in the Magistrates’ Court for an indecent act with a child under 16. The primary issue before the court was whether the magistrate erred in failing to direct herself in accordance with the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) when she did not explicitly articulate the consideration of a requested direction in her reasons. The court also considered whether the adequacy of the reasons provided by the magistrate was sufficient given the availability of a de novo hearing on appeal.

The court found that there was no statutory requirement for a magistrate to articulate the consideration of a requested direction in their reasons, as per section 4A of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic). The court considered the decision in Perkins v County Court of Victoria and held that while a magistrate’s reasons must be adequate, the necessary detail may be less when a de novo hearing is available on appeal. The court concluded that the magistrate’s reasons, in this case, were sufficient, and the appeal was dismissed.

The court did not find any error in the magistrate’s handling of the requested direction or in the adequacy of the reasons provided. The reasoning in this case reinforces the principle that while detailed reasons are important, the context of the appeal process may influence the level of detail required. The court’s decision clarifies that magistrates are not mandated to explicitly state the consideration of requested directions in their reasons, provided the overall adequacy of the reasons is maintained.