McKinnon v The Queen

Callum Craig McKinnon appealed his conviction for unlawfully assaulting Mr. Elliot Wells to the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory. McKinnon and a co-accused were initially charged with two counts of deprivation of liberty and one count of aggravated assault. The jury acquitted the co-accused of all charges and McKinnon of the deprivation of liberty charges, but convicted him of assault, specifically on the basis that Mr. Wells was unable to effectively defend himself due to being handcuffed. McKinnon’s appeal was based on three grounds: that the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury that certain evidence was outside the particulars of the assault charge, that the judge failed to direct the jury in accordance with section 27 of the Criminal Code, and that the conviction suffered from latent duplicity as the basis for the assault could not be ascertained.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal included whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury regarding the scope of the particulars provided for the assault charge, and whether the jury was properly instructed on the defence of self-defence. Specifically, the court had to consider if the judge’s directions on self-defence were flawed by linking its consideration solely to the acceptance of particular evidence, and whether the charge to the jury was sufficiently clear to avoid duplicity, ensuring the appellant was fully appraised of the case against him. The court also examined the application of section 27 of the Criminal Code, which concerns the requirement for a defendant to be fully appraised of the case against them.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and entered a verdict of acquittal. The court found that the trial judge’s directions on self-defence were misdirected by stating it could only be considered if the jury accepted the evidence of Mr. Trott, when it should have been considered if that evidence presented a reasonable possibility. Furthermore, the court determined that the manner in which the Crown presented the case, particularly regarding the particulars of the assault, led to considerable ambiguity and a potential for latent duplicity, meaning the jury could have convicted on a basis that was not clearly defined or understood by the appellant. This lack of clarity meant the appellant was not fully appraised of the case against him, a requirement under section 27 of the Criminal Code.