Smyth v R [1957] HCA 24

Smyth v R [1957] HCA 24

It could not reasonably fail to be inferred that the appellant intended to cause grievous bodily harm when striking the deceased; despite misdirection on presumption, special leave to appeal was refused since no miscarriage of justice was found.

Parties
Appellant: Eugene Aloysius Smyth; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Specific Intention, Presumption of Intent, Misdirection, Murder, Grievous Bodily Harm
Criminal Law Specific Intention Presumption of Intent Misdirection Murder Grievous Bodily Harm

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugene Aloysius Smyth

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the requirement of specific intent
  2. 2 Whether the presumption that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of their acts should have been put to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the misdirection could have led the jury to an inappropriate conclusion about intent

Ratio Decidendi

It could not reasonably fail to be inferred that the appellant intended to cause grievous bodily harm when striking the deceased; despite misdirection on presumption, special leave to appeal was refused since no miscarriage of justice was found.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for special leave to appeal refused