Pickett v Western AustraliaMead v Western AustraliaMead v Western AustraliaAnthony v Western AustraliaTSM (a child) v Western AustraliaCitation:[2020] HCA 20Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:29 May 2020Case Number:P45/2019, P46/2019, P47/2019, P48/2019, P49/2019Read more

Pickett v Western AustraliaMead v Western AustraliaMead v Western AustraliaAnthony v Western AustraliaTSM (a child) v Western AustraliaCitation:[2020] HCA 20Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:29 May 2020Case Number:P45/2019, P46/2019, P47/2019, P48/2019, P49/2019Read more

The trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury that the appellants could not be convicted of murder unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that PM did not cause death, as PM's criminal responsibility was not established and an 'offence' for the purposes of accessorial liability requires commission by a person criminally responsible.

Parties
Appellant: Appellants (names not specified); Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Parties to Offences, Accessorial Liability, Murder, Criminal Responsibility of Minors
Criminal Law Parties to Offences Accessorial Liability Murder Criminal Responsibility of Minors

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellants (names not specified)

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in declining to direct the jury that they could not convict the appellants of murder unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that PM did not cause death
  2. 2 Whether an 'offence' is committed for the purposes of ss 7(b), 7(c), and 8 of the Criminal Code where there is a failure to prove criminal responsibility of a person who may have done the act constituting the offence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury that the appellants could not be convicted of murder unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that PM did not cause death, as PM's criminal responsibility was not established and an 'offence' for the purposes of accessorial liability requires commission by a person criminally responsible.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Convictions quashed
  • New trials ordered