R v Graham and Alliston

In the case of R v Graham and Alliston, the appellants were found guilty of various criminal offences related to an incident involving robbery and assault. Graham was convicted of wounding and robbery in company, with violence and armed with an offensive weapon, while Alliston was convicted of robbery in company. Both appellants lodged appeals against their convictions. The legal issues at hand included whether the trial judge should have left the issue of self-defence to the jury, whether the judge’s directions to the jury regarding the requisite state of mind for each appellant were adequate, and whether an Edwards direction given by the judge was a misdirection.

The court examined whether the trial judge should have allowed the jury to consider the defence of self-defence. The judge had indicated a belief that self-defence should not be left to the jury but did not formally rule on it. The court found that the judge’s indication did not amount to a final ruling, and the defence of self-defence should have been left to the jury. This non-direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice, leading the court to allow the appeal and order a new trial. Additionally, the court found that the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding the state of mind required for conviction under section 7 of the Criminal Code were inadequate. The directions did not sufficiently address the need to consider the individual states of mind of each appellant, which was critical given the joint trial. This inadequacy also contributed to a miscarriage of justice, necessitating a new trial. Furthermore, the court considered the Edwards direction given by the trial judge regarding the complainant’s alleged assault on Alliston, finding it to be a misdirection that created a miscarriage of justice.

The orders made by the court were to allow both appeals, set aside the convictions, and order new trials for both appellants. In CA No 318 of 2010, the convictions of Graham were set aside, and in CA No 324 of 2010, the conviction of Alliston was set aside. Each appellant was granted a new trial to address the issues identified by the court.