Dayney v The KingCitation:[2024] HCA 22Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:12 Jun 2024Case Number:B69/2023Read more
The court held that the third clause of s 272(2) is an independent condition and the trial judge did not err in directing the jury that the appellant must satisfy the retreat condition for the defence of self-defence against provoked assault.
- Parties
- Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Respondent
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 June 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Self Defence, Murder, Provoked Assault, Jury Directions
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Appellant
Appellant
Respondent
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the third clause of s 272(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld) is an independent condition or modifies the effect of the first two clauses
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that the appellant must satisfy the retreat condition for the defence of self-defence against provoked assault
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the third clause of s 272(2) is an independent condition and the trial judge did not err in directing the jury that the appellant must satisfy the retreat condition for the defence of self-defence against provoked assault.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Conviction upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment