McKenzie, R. v

McKenzie, R. v

The Court held that, despite some imperfections in the judge's conduct and summing up, there was no real possibility that the jury was prejudicially influenced or that the verdicts were unsafe. The similar fact direction, while capable of improvement, was not defective to the extent of undermining the safety of the convictions. The evidence on each count was strong and the issues were properly put before the jury.

Parties
Appellant: John McKenzie; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Threats to Kill, Identification Evidence, Similar Fact Evidence, Judicial Conduct, Fair Trial, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Indecent Assault Threats to Kill Identification Evidence Similar Fact Evidence Judicial Conduct Fair Trial Jury Directions

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John McKenzie

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge's conduct and summing up rendered the trial unfair
  2. 2 Whether the similar fact direction was defective
  3. 3 Whether the use of screens for the complainant was prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, despite some imperfections in the judge's conduct and summing up, there was no real possibility that the jury was prejudicially influenced or that the verdicts were unsafe. The similar fact direction, while capable of improvement, was not defective to the extent of undermining the safety of the convictions. The evidence on each count was strong and the issues were properly put before the jury.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed