Mortimer v The Queen

Mortimer appealed against his conviction for child sex offences. The appeal focused on the summing up to the jury, specifically the trial judge's comments regarding the evidence of the children. Mortimer contended that these comments exceeded permissible limits set out in RGM v R and McKell v The Queen. The central issue for the court was whether the trial judge's remarks had breached the boundaries established by these authorities, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the trial judge's statements in detail, considering whether they had strayed beyond permissible limits. It was established that while individual comments might not have been problematic, the cumulative effect of the remarks was significant. The court found that the judge's comments, when viewed as a whole, had the potential to improperly influence the jury's assessment of the children's evidence. This misstep was deemed to have created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, warranting a reconsideration of Mortimer's conviction.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The court quashed Mortimer's convictions and ordered a new trial. The reasoning was grounded in the need to ensure that the trial was conducted fairly, free from judicial comments that could prejudice the jury against the defendant. The court's decision underscored the importance of judicial impartiality and the need for strict adherence to legal standards in summing up to the jury.