R v Brennan

The case of R v Brennan involved the appellant, who was convicted of murdering his wife and her 14-year-old daughter. The appellant claimed that his wife had seized the gun during a struggle, accidentally firing it at her daughter before shooting herself. The appellant argued that there was no gunshot residue on his clothes or person. However, there was evidence of the appellant's threats to kill his wife and harm her daughter, and subsequent statements by the appellant that he had shot them both. The post-mortem evidence of the gunshot wounds suffered by both victims was inconsistent with the appellant's version of events. The appeal against the conviction was heard by the court, which had to determine whether it was open to the jury, on the whole of the evidence, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt.

The court considered whether there was a miscarriage of justice in the trial. The court noted that an admission that DNA material from the appellant's wife was found under the fingernails of her daughter was mistakenly omitted from the formal admissions read to the jury in the course of evidence. However, the admission was made known to the jury during addresses. The court also considered whether the trial judge's permit to the prosecutor to address the jury on the lack of evidence as to the source of the DNA material amounted to addressing the jury about a matter not in evidence, or to reversing the onus of proof by suggesting some onus on the defence. The court held that the appellant was not deprived of a real chance of acquittal, and therefore, the particular circumstances did not amount to a miscarriage of justice.

The court also considered the appeal against sentence. The appellant was sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment on both counts, with a non-parole period of 22 years. The appellant submitted that nothing in the circumstances of the killings called for the deferral of the parole date beyond the 20-year statutory minimum prescribed by s 305(2) of the Criminal Code. The court held that the imposition of a longer non-parole period reflected a proper exercise of discretion, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. Therefore, the appeal against sentence was refused.

In summary, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.