R v MCDONALD

In *R v McDonald*, the appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of endangering life contrary to s 29(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appeal concerned the adequacy of the prosecution's investigation and the directions given by the trial judge to the jury, particularly in relation to scientific evidence.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the prosecution had a duty to arrange for further scientific tests, suggested by the defence, that might have excluded the transmission of HIV from the appellant to the complainants. The court also considered whether the failure to conduct these tests rendered the convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory, and whether the trial judge should have provided a special warning to the jury regarding the limitations of the scientific evidence or directed them that the prosecution must exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the investigators were not under a duty to undertake the further testing proposed by the defence. The court found no adequate reason why the defence itself had not arranged for these additional tests. It was determined that the shortcomings in the investigation did not indicate that the evidence presented was unreliable. Furthermore, the trial judge was found to have provided adequate and forceful directions concerning the inherent limitations of the scientific evidence, and a special direction for circumstantial evidence cases was deemed unnecessary.