McKinney, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 13 April 2017, the deceased was found drowned beside a boat moored at an island on a lake. The appellant had made an emergency call seeking help in the early hours of that day. Despite rescue efforts, the deceased was pronounced dead shortly after. The postmortem concluded death by drowning with no evidence of struggle, and a sedative was found in her blood at a high level. The appellant claimed the deceased accidentally fell into the water and he was unable to save her. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including inconsistencies in the appellant’s accounts and his conduct during emergency calls.

The appellant was convicted of murder by a jury on 21 July 2021 following a trial presided over by the trial judge. The appellant appealed against the conviction on seven grounds, three of which were granted leave to appeal by the High Court judge. These grounds concerned the handling of a no case to answer submission, the failure to discharge the jury after the death of junior counsel, and the admission of bad character evidence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in law in refusing the defence application for a direction of no case to answer.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury following the publication of the no case to answer ruling in the media.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to stop the trial and discharge the jury after the death of junior defence counsel.
4. Whether the trial judge erred in admitting bad character evidence against the appellant.
5. Whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain video evidence and characterising it correctly under the law.
6. Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence suggesting the appellant had not entered the water, despite investigative failings.
7. Whether the trial was unfair due to the jury’s allegedly insufficient deliberation time.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge wrongly refused the no case to answer submission, making the guilty verdict unsafe.
• The jury should have been discharged after media reports revealed the judge’s ruling on the no case to answer application, potentially prejudicing the jury.
• The trial was unfair due to the death of junior counsel, which weakened the defence and disadvantaged the appellant without sufficient accommodation.
• The admission of bad character evidence, particularly certain videos and a Skype chat, was prejudicial and improperly admitted.
• The judge erred in admitting video evidence of a domestic argument under incorrect legal characterisation.
• The admission of expert and reconstruction evidence suggesting the appellant did not enter the water was speculative and prejudicial, especially given investigative failures.
• The jury’s quick verdict indicated inadequate consideration of complex evidence and issues.

Appellee's Arguments

• The no case to answer ruling was legally sound and well-reasoned based on established authorities.
• The media reporting was regrettable but did not warrant discharge of the jury as no evidence existed that jurors were influenced.
• The defence was adequately represented despite the death of junior counsel, with senior counsel and solicitor continuing effectively.
• The admission of Skype chat evidence was relevant and necessary to correct false impressions about the marriage and appellant’s conduct; excluded videos were rightly excluded due to prejudicial effect.
• The video of the domestic argument was properly characterised and admissible to rebut the appellant’s assertions about the marriage.
• The expert evidence was relevant and admissible; the reconstruction evidence was excluded appropriately due to lack of probative value.
• The jury’s swift verdict reflected overwhelming evidence rather than inadequate deliberation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court meticulously reviewed each ground of appeal, applying established legal principles and precedent. Regarding the no case to answer submission, the court found the trial judge’s extensive and careful analysis consistent with the Galbraith test, concluding that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict beyond reasonable doubt. The court rejected the appellant’s contention that the judge’s reasoning was flawed, emphasizing the judge’s detailed 30-page ruling.

On the issue of media reporting of the no case to answer ruling, the court acknowledged the well-established principle that such rulings must be kept from the jury to avoid prejudice. However, no evidence indicated that the jury had been influenced by the media reports, and the judge was correct not to discharge the jury. The court noted that jurors’ assumed familiarity with legal processes was speculative and not a sufficient basis for discharge.

Concerning the death of junior counsel, the court balanced the defendant’s right to fair representation against the interests of trial finality and the victim’s family. It found that senior counsel had effectively conducted the trial and that the absence of junior counsel did not render the trial unfair, particularly given the trial’s advanced stage.

In relation to bad character evidence, the court upheld the exclusion of highly prejudicial video evidence that might provoke moral outrage, while admitting the written Skype chat evidence as it was relevant, probative, and less prejudicial. The court found the trial judge had struck an appropriate balance between probative value and prejudicial effect.

The court also agreed with the trial judge’s characterisation and admission of the domestic argument video as relevant to rebut the appellant’s claims about the marriage, rejecting the appellant’s challenge.

Regarding evidence suggesting the appellant had not entered the water, the court accepted the exclusion of police reconstruction evidence as lacking probative value but upheld the admission of expert evidence on cold water effects and photographic analysis. Although the court expressed some hesitation about one expert’s evidence, it deferred to the trial judge’s familiarity with the case.

Finally, the court dismissed the claim that the jury’s relatively short deliberation time indicated unfairness, noting the absence of evidence of undue pressure or inconsistent verdicts and recognizing that a swift verdict may reflect overwhelming evidence.

Holding and Implications

The Court of Appeal DISMISSED the appeal against conviction on all grounds. The court affirmed the safety of the jury’s verdict and upheld the trial judge’s rulings and conduct throughout the trial.

The direct effect is that the appellant’s conviction for murder stands. The court noted no new legal precedent was established and emphasized the importance of careful judicial balancing in complex trials involving circumstantial evidence, media influence, counsel availability, and evidential rulings.