R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 25)

Ronald Edward Medich was convicted of drug trafficking offences and appealed against his conviction on the basis that the trial judge erred in not giving a "Murray direction" to the jury. The jury was directed that it would be "dangerous to convict" based on the evidence of a co-offender. The court was required to determine whether a "Murray direction" was warranted and whether warnings were warranted in respect of two witnesses on the basis that their evidence was unreliable. The court found that a "Murray direction" was not warranted because the evidence of the co-offender was not unreliable but rather inconsistent. The court also found that warnings were warranted in respect of two witnesses on the basis that their evidence was unreliable. The court held that the trial judge's failure to give a "Murray direction" was not a miscarriage of justice, but the failure to warn the jury about the unreliability of two witnesses was. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions were quashed.

The court held that a "Murray direction" was not warranted because the evidence of the co-offender was not unreliable but rather inconsistent. The court found that the co-offender's evidence was not so unreliable as to make it unsafe to convict on that evidence alone. The court held that the trial judge was entitled to conclude that the jury could properly convict on the co-offender's evidence if they were satisfied that it was reliable and accurate. The court also held that the trial judge's failure to give a "Murray direction" was not a miscarriage of justice because the evidence of the co-offender was not so unreliable as to make it unsafe to convict on that evidence alone. The court held that the trial judge's failure to warn the jury about the unreliability of two witnesses was a miscarriage of justice because their evidence was unreliable and the jury was not properly directed about the need to approach their evidence with caution. The court held that the unreliability of the two witnesses went to the heart of the case against the appellant and that the trial judge's failure to warn the jury about their unreliability was a significant error that undermined the safety of the conviction.