R v Skerritt

In the matter of the Queen versus Skerritt, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter following an incident where a blow was delivered by the appellant, resulting in the death of the victim. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the court. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge should have instructed the jury on the foreseeability of death, given that it was accepted that the appellant had indeed delivered the blow causing the death. The appellant argued at trial that his actions were not consistent with the delivery of such a blow, which led to an inconsistency in his case.

The court examined the nature of the appellant's defence and the instructions given by the trial judge to the jury. The court concluded that there was no obligation on the trial judge to provide a direction on the foreseeability of death, as the appellant's case at trial was inconsistent with the delivery of the fatal blow. The court found that the appellant's defence did not raise the issue of whether the death was foreseeable, and therefore, the trial judge was not required to instruct the jury on this matter. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and that the appellant's appeal against his conviction was without merit.

Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction for manslaughter was upheld. The court found that the trial judge had correctly assessed the evidence and the law, and that there were no grounds for a new trial or an inquiry after conviction. The final order was that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction remained in place.