Crabbe, Douglas John Edwin v the Queen [1984] FCA 360

Crabbe, Douglas John Edwin v the Queen [1984] FCA 360

The appellant's statements that he did not consider or feel himself capable of doing the act amounted to putting his character in issue, and the trial judge did not err in permitting limited cross-examination about the prior incidents. However, the convictions could not stand because the jury was misdirected on murder by recklessness: the directions treated foresight of the possibility that people might be in the bar, combined with failure to take steps to find out, as sufficient for murder. That formulation did not correctly state the limited principle of wilful blindness and failed adequately to distinguish murder, requiring foresight of probability or a substantial risk of death or...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 1984
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Convictions for Murder / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia to the Federal Court of Australia, General Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions set aside; appellant remanded in custody to await a new trial.
Legal Topics
['murder by Reckless Conduct' 'manslaughter' 'wilful Blindness' 'jury Directions' 'good Character Evidence' 'cross Examination of Accused' 'discretion to Admit Prejudicial Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'appellate Procedure'] ['murder by Reckless Conduct' 'manslaughter' 'wilful Blindness' 'jury Directions' 'good Character Evidence' 'cross Examination of Accused' 'discretion to Admit Prejudicial Evidence']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Convictions for Murder / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia to the Federal Court of Australia, General Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant gave evidence of his own good character within the meaning of s.9(7) of the Evidence Act (NT).' 'Whether the trial judge erred in permitting cross-examination about the Tennant Creek incident and the alleged Curtin Springs threat.' 'Whether the jury directions on murder by reckless conduct, wilful blindness and manslaughter misstated the law or failed adequately to distinguish murder from manslaughter.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's statements that he did not consider or feel himself capable of doing the act amounted to putting his character in issue, and the trial judge did not err in permitting limited cross-examination about the prior incidents. However, the convictions could not stand because the jury was misdirected on murder by recklessness: the directions treated foresight of the possibility that people might be in the bar, combined with failure to take steps to find out, as sufficient for murder. That formulation did not correctly state the limited principle of wilful blindness and failed adequately to distinguish murder, requiring foresight of probability or a substantial risk of death or...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions set aside; appellant remanded in custody to await a new trial.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed and the convictions set aside.' 'The appellant be remanded in custody to await a new trial.']