R v Heyward & Minter

This matter concerned appeals against convictions for murder by the appellants, Heyward and Minter. Heyward's appeal raised several grounds, including the admissibility of police interviews, the trial judge's directions on circumstantial evidence and the defence case, the failure to give an accomplice warning regarding Minter's evidence, and the overall safety and satisfactoriness of the verdict. Minter's appeal also raised multiple grounds, focusing on the publication of a newspaper article during the trial, the adequacy of the judge's directions on intoxication, the admissibility of his admissions to police, and the overall safety of the verdict.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain police interviews with Heyward, despite initial interviews being excluded due to a lack of caution. The court also considered whether the judge's directions to the jury adequately presented the defence case, particularly concerning circumstantial evidence and the evidence of a co-accused. For Minter, the court examined whether the publication of a newspaper article warranted discharging the jury, whether the judge's directions on intoxication were sufficient, and whether Minter's admissions to police were improperly obtained or unfairly admitted, potentially overbearing his will or subverting his right to silence.

The court reasoned that while the initial interviews with Heyward were correctly excluded, subsequent interviews conducted with proper cautions were admissible. The judge's decision to exclude parts of the admitted interviews that referred to the excluded ones was deemed appropriate to prevent unfair prejudice. Regarding the directions on circumstantial evidence and the defence case, the court found that the summing up, when considered as a whole, adequately presented the defence's arguments and the competing inferences. The absence of an explicit accomplice warning was justified as there was no evidence that Minter's testimony was given to serve his own interests. For Minter, the newspaper article was not considered sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a mistrial, and the directions on intoxication were found adequate. The admissions made by Minter to the police were deemed voluntary and not obtained through improper pressure or inducement, thus their admission did not render the trial unfair.

Consequently, the court dismissed Minter's appeal against conviction. For Heyward, permission to appeal was granted on specific grounds relating to the admissibility of evidence and the addition of a further ground, but his appeal against conviction was otherwise dismissed.