Trevascus v R

The case of Trevascus v R involved an appeal against the applicant's conviction for robbery in company and attempting to take and drive a vehicle without consent. The applicant argued that there was a miscarriage of justice due to the manner in which the trial judge provided directions to the jury. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court. The applicant contended that the trial judge's written directions to the jury were inadequate as they were not supplemented by any oral directions, and that this omission constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's failure to provide oral directions to the jury in addition to the written question trails amounted to an error and, if so, whether this error was significant enough to constitute a miscarriage of justice. The court needed to consider the necessity for oral directions to accompany written directions, the importance of ensuring the jury comprehends the directions, and the requirement for a trial to be transparent and conducted in public. The court also needed to examine whether the trial judge adequately put the defence case to the jury.

The court found that the trial judge's reliance solely on written directions without providing any oral directions was an error. The court emphasised that written directions are supplementary to and not a substitute for oral directions. This practice was not encouraged, as it is essential to ensure that the jury comprehends the directions. The court also noted that the trial judge did not adequately put the defence case to the jury, despite counsel for the accused making substantive submissions regarding aspects of the evidence. The court concluded that this was a fundamental error, which went to the root of the proceedings, and justified the grant of leave to appeal. Consequently, the court found that a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the trial judge's errors.

The court ordered that the applicant's conviction be quashed, and a retrial be conducted. The court also made observations on the practice of providing written directions to juries and the importance of ensuring that a trial is transparent and conducted in public. The court highlighted the necessity for trial judges to emphasise that written directions are supplementary to oral directions and to ensure that the jury comprehends the directions. The court further noted that allowing the jury to retire to the jury room part way through the summing-up to read the written directions for themselves was a practice not to be encouraged.