R v Makary

In the case of R v Makary, the appellant was convicted of three counts of administering a stupefying thing with intent to commit an indictable offence, two counts of rape, and one count of attempted rape. Each of the complainants were South Korean women who met the appellant online. The appellant met up with each complainant on separate occasions and drugged their drinks with sleeping tablets, taking advantage of their incapacitated state to commit the offences. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence, arguing various grounds of error.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the application of section 24 of the Criminal Code were adequate, whether certain DNA evidence was properly admitted, whether the trial judge correctly directed the jury on the alternative offence of attempted rape, whether the appellant's legal counsel was competent, whether the counts should have been tried separately, and whether the verdicts and sentence were reasonable. The court considered the appellant's arguments regarding potential misdirections and errors in the trial process and evaluated the evidence to determine if the jury's verdicts were reasonable and if the sentence was appropriate.

The court found that the trial judge's directions on section 24 of the Criminal Code were sufficient, and the DNA evidence was properly admitted as it was not hearsay but rather expert testimony explaining a certificate. The court also found no error in the trial judge's direction on the alternative offence of attempted rape. The court determined that the appellant's counsel's decision not to pursue certain lines of questioning did not amount to incompetence. The court further held that the joinder of counts did not result in a miscarriage of justice and that the jury's verdicts, supported by compelling evidence, were reasonable. Lastly, the court held that although the sentencing judge considered impermissible factors, the sentence was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences.

The orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against conviction, grant leave to appeal against the sentence, and dismiss the appeal against the sentence.