Mulkatana and Mulkatana v The Queen

Ernest Mulkatana and Grant Mulkatana appealed their convictions for murder, aggravated unlawful entry of premises, and aggravated assault. The appeals concerned the meaning of "serious harm," the application of relevant law to the facts, expert evidence on causation, the role of intoxication in establishing intention, the adequacy of jury directions, and the reasonableness of the verdicts. The Court of Appeal of Western Australia heard the appeals.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding expert evidence on causation were adequate, particularly in light of conflicting expert opinions on the cause of death. The court also considered whether the verdicts were unreasonable, and in Grant Mulkatana's case, whether the jury had been properly directed on the principles of common intention and aiding and abetting, particularly concerning the knowledge and awareness required for such offences.

The Court dismissed Ernest Mulkatana's appeal, finding that the jury was entitled to prefer the evidence of one medical expert over another, and that the trial judge's directions on expert evidence, while not framed in philosophical or purely scientific terms, were appropriate. The court adopted the reasoning in *Velevski v R*, stating that juries are frequently called upon to resolve conflicts between experts, and that expert evidence does not, as a matter of law, fall into categories that juries are incapable of resolving. The issues in this case were not considered to be the subject of "difficult and sophisticated expert evidence." However, the Court allowed Grant Mulkatana's appeal, setting aside his conviction for murder and ordering a retrial.