Edwards v The Queen [1992] HCA 19

Edwards v The Queen [1992] HCA 19

The misdirection in failing to instruct the jury that intention to cause detriment was an element of the offence and that the appellant must have known of that purpose resulted in a miscarriage of justice, depriving the appellant of a real chance of acquittal; conviction quashed and new trial ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of Criminal Appeal (wa)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['director’s Duties' 'improper Use of Position' 'criminal Participation' 'objective/subjective Knowledge' 'misdirection of Jury']

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 / High Court Appeal From Court of Criminal Appeal (wa)

  1. 1 ['Whether s. 229(4) of Companies (Western Australia) Code requires proof of purposive intention to cause detriment' "Whether knowledge of all essential elements, including impropriety, is required for 'knowingly concerned' liability" 'Whether jury was properly directed as to elements of offence under s. 229(4) and s. 38(1)' 'Application of criminal appeal proviso in the context of errant jury direction']

Ratio Decidendi

The misdirection in failing to instruct the jury that intention to cause detriment was an element of the offence and that the appellant must have known of that purpose resulted in a miscarriage of justice, depriving the appellant of a real chance of acquittal; conviction quashed and new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia set aside.' 'Appeal to that Court allowed.' 'Conviction quashed.' 'New trial ordered.']