R v McKnight (No. 3) [2014] NSWSC 558

R v McKnight (No. 3) [2014] NSWSC 558

Because the relevant issue under s23A was to be proved by the accused on the balance of probabilities, the direction described only a permissible mode of reasoning from circumstantial evidence and did not impose any obligation on the Crown or suggest an irrebuttable presumption. The earlier direction was correct in law and factually accurate, so a redirection would be unnecessary and could create confusion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Redirection During Jury Deliberations
Outcome
Application to redirect the Jury declined.
Legal Topics
['jury Directions' 'redirection' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'presumption of Continuity' 'balance of Probabilities' 'mental Incapacity Under S23 A']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['jury Directions' 'redirection' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'presumption of Continuity' 'balance of Probabilities' 'mental Incapacity Under S23 A']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Redirection During Jury Deliberations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge should redirect the Jury by withdrawing the expression "the presumption of continuity" used in directions.' 'Whether the presumption of continuity may be used in a criminal trial on an issue to be proved on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.' 'Whether the earlier direction risked suggesting that the onus of proof shifted to the Crown contrary to s 23A(4).']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the relevant issue under s23A was to be proved by the accused on the balance of probabilities, the direction described only a permissible mode of reasoning from circumstantial evidence and did not impose any obligation on the Crown or suggest an irrebuttable presumption. The earlier direction was correct in law and factually accurate, so a redirection would be unnecessary and could create confusion.

Court Disposition

Application to redirect the Jury declined.

Orders

  • ['I decline the application to redirect the Jury.']