Peniamina v The Queen [2020] HCA 47

Peniamina v The Queen [2020] HCA 47

The High Court majority held that s 304(3) does not require the accused to prove their loss of self-control was not 'based on' anything done or believed to be done by the deceased to change the relationship, unless the conduct relied upon as the cause of the loss of self-control was itself done to change the relationship. The elements of the provocation defence are stated in s 304(1); s 304(3) operates as a question of law, and should not have been left to the jury in the circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: Arona Peniamina; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of Appeal on Conviction for Murder
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside and new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Provocation, Manslaughter, Murder, Defence of Provocation, Domestic Relationship, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Provocation Manslaughter Murder Defence of Provocation Domestic Relationship Statutory Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arona Peniamina

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of Appeal on Conviction for Murder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of the defence of provocation in s 304(3) of the Criminal Code (Qld) is confined to cases where the conduct relied upon as causative of loss of self-control consists of a thing done to change the relationship
  2. 2 Whether operation of s 304(3) to exclude the defence is a question of law
  3. 3 Proper construction of the phrase 'based on' in s 304(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court majority held that s 304(3) does not require the accused to prove their loss of self-control was not 'based on' anything done or believed to be done by the deceased to change the relationship, unless the conduct relied upon as the cause of the loss of self-control was itself done to change the relationship. The elements of the provocation defence are stated in s 304(1); s 304(3) operates as a question of law, and should not have been left to the jury in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction set aside and new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on 29 November 2019.