McKinnin v The Queen

McKinnin and his father were convicted of recklessly causing serious injury to a victim who was assaulted with a baseball bat or bats. The applicants appealed against both their convictions and sentences, as well as the trial judge's handling of evidence and jury directions. The applicants argued that the judge erred in refusing an application by the mother of one of the applicants to be excused from giving evidence, and that the judge's questioning of the jury inaccurately set out the factual matters in issue, compromising their right to separate consideration of the cases against them. They further contended that the judge's directions to the jury regarding questioning witnesses occasioned a fundamental breach in the integrity of the trial and a miscarriage of justice.

The court considered whether the judge had erred in refusing the application by the mother to be excused from giving evidence, whether the questions asked by the judge to the jury inaccurately set out the factual matters in issue, and whether the judge's directions to the jury regarding questioning witnesses occasioned a fundamental breach in the integrity of the trial and a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the judge did not err in refusing the application by the mother to be excused from giving evidence, that the questions asked by the judge to the jury did not inaccurately set out the factual matters in issue, and that the judge's directions to the jury regarding questioning witnesses did not occasion a fundamental breach in the integrity of the trial or a miscarriage of justice. The court also held that the son's sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the judge had not sentenced him on a factual basis inconsistent with the jury's verdict.

The applicants' applications for leave to appeal against their convictions and sentences were refused. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the applicants' convictions, that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive, and that the judge had not erred in his handling of evidence or jury directions. The applicants' appeals against their convictions and sentences were dismissed.