RWC v R

In the matter of RWC versus R, the appellant sought to appeal against his conviction, contending that the verdict was unreasonable and that he was denied a fair trial. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales. The appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable because it was inconsistent to be found guilty of some counts while being acquitted on others, and that the trial judge failed to give a direction to the jury in accordance with Markuleski v R. The appellant claimed this deprived him of the chance of an acquittal on all counts.

The legal issues before the court were whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and whether the appellant's right to a fair trial was breached by the failure to give a Markuleski direction. The court considered whether there was an inconsistency in the verdicts and if the absence of a direction deprived the appellant of the chance of an acquittal on all counts. The court examined the principles of a fair trial and the need for a direction to the jury in cases where there are multiple counts.

The court determined that there was no inconsistency between the verdicts and that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable. The court held that the absence of a Markuleski direction did not deny the appellant a fair trial, as the direction was not mandatory in all cases. However, the court granted leave to appeal on the second ground, finding that the appellant was denied the chance of an acquittal on all counts due to the absence of the direction. The court quashed the convictions, finding that the appellant was denied a fair trial.

The court ordered that the convictions be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial. The court emphasised the importance of a fair trial and the need for trial judges to consider giving a Markuleski direction in appropriate cases. The appellant's appeal was ultimately successful, and he was granted a new trial.