R v McCosker

The appellant, along with his co-accused, was convicted of stealing grain worth $159,418 from their employer. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence, citing irregularities related to the jury, misdirection by the trial judge, and the sentence being manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether there was any irregularity in the jury selection that could have prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair trial, whether the trial judge's direction to the jury was erroneous, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court first examined the alleged irregularity concerning a juror who had a prior acquaintance with the appellant through his wife. The juror did not disclose this relationship or a conversation she had with the appellant's wife, where she expressed suspicion about his guilt. The appellant became aware of the conversation during the trial but chose not to challenge the juror. The court considered whether a fair-minded observer might doubt the juror's impartiality and whether the appellant waived his right to object by not challenging her. The court held that no irregularity occurred as the juror did not disclose relevant facts that might indicate bias and the appellant did not exercise his right to challenge her. The court also reviewed the trial judge's handling of the evidence concerning conversations between the witness and the co-accused in the absence of the appellant, finding no misdirection or non-direction that would warrant a retrial. Finally, the court assessed the sentence, concluding it was not manifestly excessive given the persistent and systematic nature of the appellant's dishonesty.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.