R v Ormond

The appeal concerned convictions for murder and aggravated causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm. The appellant, Jason Ormond, was jointly charged with two co-accused. While one co-accused pleaded guilty to both offences, Ormond pleaded not guilty and was subsequently convicted by a jury. The other co-accused was acquitted. The appeal was heard by Gray, White, and Peek JJ of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the appellant urinating on the deceased's body, whether the judge failed to adequately direct the jury on self-defence and home invasion, the admissibility of certain statements made at the scene, and the relevance and admissibility of the co-accused's guilty pleas. The overarching question was whether, when considered collectively, these grounds of appeal indicated a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal against both convictions. Gray J, with whom White and Peek JJ concurred, found the evidence of urination to be relevant and admissible as part of the res gestae. The court determined that the evidence did not support a defence of self-defence or home invasion, and even if a direction on home invasion had been given, no miscarriage of justice would have arisen. While the trial judge erred in attributing a co-accused's statement to the appellant, this error was not considered to have created a risk of miscarriage. The summing-up was deemed sufficient to prevent any miscarriage of justice arising from the inclusion of the co-accused's guilty pleas. Peek J added that Courts of Criminal Appeal have a duty to provide a safety net and may consider matters not raised at trial, such as a judge's independent duty to direct on all defences, even if opposed by trial counsel.