R v McEwan

In the case of R v McEwan, the appellant was convicted of various serious criminal offences and appealed against the conviction on the grounds that the trial judge had erred in giving a Weissensteiner comment to the jury. The appeal was dismissed by the court, which held that the circumstances warranted the comment and that it was correctly given. The appellant argued that a Weissensteiner comment should only be given in cases that are rare and exceptional, but the court rejected this contention, finding that the comment was appropriate based on the evidence and the principles established in previous cases.

The legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion to give a Weissensteiner comment to the jury, and if not, whether this error was sufficiently significant to warrant a new trial. The appellant submitted that the comment should not have been given because the case was not rare and exceptional, but the court disagreed, finding that the evidence supported the trial judge's decision to give the comment. The court considered the parameters for making such a comment, including the need for the evidence to be largely circumstantial and for the accused to have peculiar knowledge of facts that could explain or contradict the inference sought by the prosecution.

The court concluded that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion to give the Weissensteiner comment, as the evidence was largely circumstantial and the appellant had peculiar knowledge of facts that could explain the inference drawn by the prosecution. The court found that the comment was correctly given in accordance with established legal principles and did not constitute a significant error warranting a new trial. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.