McDonald v R [2010] NSWCCA 220
The trial judge appropriately directed that malice could be established by recklessness but intent to cause grievous bodily harm must also be proved beyond reasonable doubt, with appropriate consideration given to intoxication; directions regarding self-defence correctly placed the onus on the Crown to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 September 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Conviction Appeal / Judgment After Hearing
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['conviction Appeal' 'wounding With Intent' 'self Defence' 'jury Directions' 'onus of Proof']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Conviction Appeal / Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the trial judge erroneously directed jury that conviction could be based on recklessness for intent to cause grievous bodily harm under s 33 Crimes Act 1900' 'Whether the trial judge correctly directed jury on need to find both malice and intent to cause grievous bodily harm' 'Whether the trial judge reversed or misdirected the onus of proof in relation to self-defence under s 419 Crimes Act 1900']
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge appropriately directed that malice could be established by recklessness but intent to cause grievous bodily harm must also be proved beyond reasonable doubt, with appropriate consideration given to intoxication; directions regarding self-defence correctly placed the onus on the Crown to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Leave to rely upon Grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Appeal is refused' 'Appeal dismissed']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment