Whitmore v The Queen; the Queen v Whitmore

In this case, the appellant, Whitmore, appealed against his conviction and sentence for murder. The matter was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal raised several issues, including whether the summing up to the jury contained a misdirection, whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The appeal also touched on the standard of proof required for findings of fact by the trial judge.

The court examined whether there was a misdirection in the summing up to the jury. The court found that the principle was correctly stated in the document before the jury and that the appellant failed to object to the repetition of part of the correct document. The court held that the repetition did not constitute a misdirection. The court then considered whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, particularly in light of the unreliability of a key witness. The court concluded that the evidence supported the verdict and that the unreliability of the witness did not render the verdict unreasonable or unsupported.

The court also addressed the issue of whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The court assessed the seriousness of the offence based on the facts and inferences drawn by the trial judge, considering the objective gravity of the offence, any aggravating circumstances, and the offender's history. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate, given the circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal.