Regina v McKechnie: 1992

When a judge intends to provide an explanatory note for a jury, he should provide a copy to counsel in advance with sufficient opportunity for them to consider and comment on it.
(1992) 94 Cr App R 51
Cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Smith, Regina v Mercieca HL 16-Feb-2005
    A member of the jury wrote to the judge saying that other members were failing to discharge their duties properly. Smith took a tactical decision not to seek a retrial. The judge saw counsel in chambers, after which the jury were reminded of their . .
    Times 17-Feb-05, [2005] UKHL 12, [2005] 1 WLR 704, [2005] 1 All ER 29
  • Cited – Regina v Clarke and Fletcher CACD 30-Jul-1997
    Hutchison LJ said: ‘The way in which this Court should approach an appeal against conviction, based on allegedly inconsistent verdicts is well settled. To succeed the appellant must show first the verdicts are logically inconsistent, and secondly, . .
    (unreported, 30 July 1997)
  • Cited – Muhib, Regina v CACD 13-Jan-1998
    The defendant appealed against his conviction for manslaughter saying that the jury had returned inconsistent verdicts,
    Held: ‘there is no possible logical inconsistency in the jury returning a verdict of manslaughter in relation to one victim . .
    [1998] EWCA Crim 34

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 December 2020; Ref: scu.222830