R v MCN

The case of R v MCN involved a conviction by the appellant of two counts of sexual offences against his daughter. The appellant brought an appeal against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's direction to the jury on the need for corroboration was inadequate and amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant was brought to trial three years after the offences were alleged to have occurred. Both counsel agreed that a Longman direction should be given, but the appellant's counsel submitted on appeal that the direction given appeared to be an amalgamation of a Longman direction and a Robinson direction. The appellant's counsel also submitted that the trial judge did not warn the jury that it would be “dangerous” to convict.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the trial judge's direction to the jury on the need for corroboration was adequate and whether the failure to warn the jury that it would be “dangerous” to convict amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court considered the case of Longman, which held that a warning to the jury that it would be dangerous to convict on uncorroborated evidence of sexual assault was required when there was a substantial delay between the offence and the complaint, and where the complainant was a child. The court also considered the case of Robinson, which held that where there is evidence of a particularised nature, the jury must be directed that they must be satisfied of those particulars before they can convict. The court concluded that the trial judge's direction was adequate and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury on the need for corroboration was adequate. The court held that the trial judge was not required to warn the jury that it would be “dangerous” to convict on the basis of the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant. The court found that the trial judge's direction was in accordance with the principles set out in Longman and Robinson, and that the failure to warn the jury that it would be “dangerous” to convict did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the jury had been properly directed on the need for corroboration and that the conviction was safe. The appeal was dismissed.