R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 26)

Ronald Edward Medich was convicted of multiple charges including murder and attempted murder. The Court of Appeal was tasked with assessing the correctness of various legal decisions made during Medich's trial, including the trial judge's refusal to direct the jury to inquire into the progress of their deliberations. The court considered whether the trial judge's decision was an error of law that warranted an appeal against conviction. The key legal issue was whether the trial judge's refusal to allow the jury to report on their progress in deliberations was an error of law, and if so, whether this error was significant enough to warrant an appeal against conviction.

The court reviewed the relevant legal principles regarding the progress of jury deliberations and the trial judge's discretion to make inquiries. It found that while there was a general principle that the trial judge should not interfere with the jury's deliberations, there were also instances where the trial judge could make an enquiry if it appeared that the jury was deadlocked. The court considered whether the trial judge's refusal to make such an enquiry was an error of law that could potentially affect the fairness of the trial and the safety of the conviction. After examining the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the trial judge's refusal to direct the jury to inquire into their progress was indeed an error of law. However, the court determined that this error did not affect the safety of the conviction, and therefore, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The court also examined other grounds of appeal raised by Medich, including the admissibility of certain evidence and the adequacy of the summing up. After careful consideration, the court found no merit in these grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. The court's decision highlights the importance of the trial judge's discretion in managing jury deliberations and the need for careful consideration of legal principles in such matters. The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.