McKinney v The Queen; Judge v The Queen

The applicants, Vincent Peter McKinney and another individual, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against their convictions. The central dispute concerned whether the trial judge erred by failing to give a specific warning to the jury regarding the acceptance of confessional evidence, even though the records of interview involved were signed by the accused.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether, in light of the principles established in *Carr v The Queen* and *Duke v The Queen*, a warning concerning the acceptance of confessional evidence was required in a case involving signed records of interview. The applicants contended that despite the confessions being signed, the circumstances of the case warranted such a warning, aligning with the broader principle that warnings may be necessary in appropriate cases.

The applicants' argument relied on the High Court's previous decisions in *Carr* and *Duke*, which addressed the need for jury warnings concerning disputed confessional evidence. While *Carr* held that there was no absolute rule requiring such warnings, it affirmed that in appropriate circumstances, a warning might be called for, with each case to be judged on its own facts. The applicants sought to extend this principle to cases involving signed confessions, arguing that the present case presented such circumstances, making a warning necessary for the jury to properly consider the confessional evidence.