R v Haydon (No 7)

In the case of R v Haydon (No 7), the accused was charged with two counts of murder and six counts of assisting offenders. Following the conclusion of the Crown's opening, the accused sought an order for a mistrial, arguing that the nature and content of the Crown's opening was such that they could not receive a fair trial. Specifically, the accused claimed that the Crown had invited the jury to reason in an impermissible way by propensity reasoning, and that the Crown had failed to identify what matters were being alleged as facts.

The court considered the specific complaints made by the accused's counsel and examined the contents of the Crown's opening. The court found that the Crown's opening was conducted without emotive language and without arguing the case for the Crown. The court concluded that there was nothing unfair about the manner in which the Crown opened the case, and that the Crown had not invited the jury to reason by way of propensity reasoning. The court found that the Crown opening was not unbalanced and did not seek to anticipate what might be the defence case. The court found that the Crown had simply set out the facts and inferences that they would be asking the jury to draw. The court concluded that the Crown opening was not unfair or improper and refused the application for a mistrial.

The court emphasised that it is not the function of an opening to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence and what evidence may be cross-admissible in respect of various counts. The court noted that if it transpired that there were matters upon which the Crown had opened on which there was no evidence, then the jury would be directed accordingly. The court also noted that at the conclusion of the evidence, the jury would be given detailed directions about how the evidence could be used and what evidence was admissible in respect of each count. The court held that the Crown opening was not unfair or improper and dismissed the application for a mistrial.