R v Johnson & Honeysett

In the matter of R v Johnson & Honeysett, the appellants were convicted in the lower court of assault occasioning bodily harm in company, with Honeysett also convicted of a further count of assault occasioning bodily harm. The case came before the court on appeal, with the appellants arguing that the trial judge had misstated the test for comparing inconsistent evidence of witnesses. Specifically, they claimed that the trial judge suggested to the jury that it was possible they might not accept either witness' account but also suggested that finding the second witness less reliable would dispose them to accept the complainant's evidence. The appellants contended that the jury should have been directed that if they were left in doubt as to which version of the evidence was correct, they should acquit the appellants. They also argued that the jury should have been directed that if the evidence of the second witness left them with a reasonable doubt, they should acquit.

The court examined the trial judge's summing-up and found that there was indeed a misdirection in the form of an incomplete statement of the law. The court held that if the jury was left in doubt as to which version of the evidence was correct, they should have been directed to acquit the appellants. Additionally, the court found that the trial judge's comment on the temporal relationship between the facts underlying the count and what could be heard on an audio recording of the incident was not an error of law but rather a permissible comment. However, the court held that this comment did not amount to a miscarriage of justice.

The court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and ordered a retrial on both counts. The court found that the misdirection by the trial judge was material and that it led to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the convictions were set aside, and a retrial was ordered to ensure that the appellants received a fair trial.