Clayton v The Queen [2006] HCA 58

Clayton v The Queen [2006] HCA 58

The High Court declined to reconsider or re-express the doctrine of extended common purpose as stated in McAuliffe and Gillard, holding that its application had not resulted in demonstrated miscarriages of justice, was consistent with other common law jurisdictions, and that systemic changes were best left to legislative bodies. Applications for special leave to appeal were dismissed. Principles established in McAuliffe and Gillard remain binding.

Parties
Applicant: Celia Kathleen Clayton; Applicant: John Douglas Hartwick; Applicant: Lisa Jane Hartwick; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application for special leave dismissed
Legal Topics
Complicity, Extended Common Purpose, Murder, Manslaughter, Accessorial Liability
Criminal Law Complicity Extended Common Purpose Murder Manslaughter Accessorial Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Celia Kathleen Clayton

Applicant

John Douglas Hartwick

Applicant

Lisa Jane Hartwick

Applicant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the doctrine of extended common purpose is justified under Australian common law
  2. 2 Whether murder on the basis of extended common purpose should have been left to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the law should require proof of actual intent or probability rather than foresight of possibility for murder convictions under extended common purpose

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court declined to reconsider or re-express the doctrine of extended common purpose as stated in McAuliffe and Gillard, holding that its application had not resulted in demonstrated miscarriages of justice, was consistent with other common law jurisdictions, and that systemic changes were best left to legislative bodies. Applications for special leave to appeal were dismissed. Principles established in McAuliffe and Gillard remain binding.

Court Disposition

application for special leave dismissed

Orders

  • In each matter, the application for special leave is dismissed.