A trial judge's use of illustrative analogies in a jury charge, when contextually linked to the defence case, may constitute impermissible judicial comment on the facts contrary to McKell v The Queen, even if the analogy is ostensibly directed to explaining the distinction between reasonable and fanciful possibilities. The context in which an analogy is introduced — including the judge's introductory language and the proximity to discussion of the defence case — is critical to assessing whether the jury would understand it as conveying the judge's opinion on a disputed factual issue. Deportation at the conclusion of a sentence constitutes extra-curial punishment that must be taken into account in mitigation.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.