R v McBride (No 2)

In the case of R v McBride (No 2), the accused, David McBride, faced criminal charges in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The case involved complex legal issues regarding the accused's duty under military law and the scope of his obligations as determined by jury direction. The accused sought clarity on the jury directions before the trial commenced, aiming to ensure that any potential appeal would be based on specific, ordered directions rather than on the court's reasons alone.

The court had to determine whether it should provide specific directions to the jury concerning the accused's duty, particularly in relation to acting in the public interest as defined by the jury. The accused argued that the directions should exclude any notion of acting in the public interest, even if it conflicted with lawful orders. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that a lawful order could define the accused's duty. The court needed to balance these arguments, considering the potential impact on the trial's efficiency and the accused's right to appeal.

Justice Mossop concluded that making specific orders would be beneficial to avoid procedural defects in any future appeal. The court decided to issue orders that would guide the jury's directions. These orders specified that the jury would not be directed to consider the accused's duty in terms of acting in the public interest as determined by the jury, even if it contravened a lawful order. Additionally, the orders recognised that a lawful order within a general order could define the scope of the accused's duty. The court emphasised that these orders were subject to any further orders made during the trial.

The final orders of the court were to ensure that the jury directions would not include a mandate for the accused to act in the public interest as determined by the jury, even if it conflicted with lawful orders. The court also clarified that a lawful order within a general order could define the accused's duty, thereby providing a clear framework for the trial's proceedings.