R v Freer and Weekes

In the case of R v Freer and Weekes, the appellants, Freer and Weekes, were jointly tried and convicted of the murder of a woman. The primary issues in the appeal were the admissibility of a confession by one appellant that implicated the other, the fairness of the trial in light of a prosecutor's address, and the trial judge's failure to give an Edwards or Zoneff direction to the jury regarding alleged lies told by the appellants.

The court considered whether the confession of Weekes, which implicated Freer and exculpated Weekes, was admissible against Freer when tendered by Weekes' counsel rather than the prosecution. The court found that the confession was admissible because Freer's counsel had applied the confessional statement to the forensic benefit of Freer by cross-examining Weekes on the contents of the statement. The court also reviewed the prosecutor's address, which contained misstatements of law, and determined that there was no real risk that the remarks wrongly influenced the verdict, especially given the judge's directions to the jury.

Further, the court examined whether the trial judge should have given an Edwards or Zoneff direction in response to the prosecutor's suggestion that the appellants had lied. The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in failing to give such a direction because the prosecution did not contend that the lies were evidence of guilt, and the judge was not asked to give an Edwards or Zoneff direction.

The appeal against the convictions was dismissed in both cases, affirming the appellants' convictions for the murder. The court's reasoning underscored the importance of the admissibility of confessions in criminal trials, the impact of prosecutorial remarks, and the circumstances under which specific jury directions are required.