R v Szabo [2000] NSWCCA 226

R v Szabo [2000] NSWCCA 226

The appeal was dismissed because, read as a whole, the summing up adequately directed the jury on provocation under s 23, including the subjective loss of self-control test and the objective ordinary person in the position of the accused test. The trial judge was not required in the circumstances to give further directions under s 23(3)(a) or (c). It was reasonably open to the jury to reject the appellant's account of provocation, to conclude that provocation had been negatived beyond reasonable doubt, and to find that diminished responsibility had not been established. The alleged trial irregularities did not create a substantial possibility that the jury was mistaken or misled.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal After Jury Conviction for Murder
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['murder' 'provocation' 'diminished Responsibility' 'jury Directions' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'good Character Directions' 'reckless Indifference to Human Life']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['murder' 'provocation' 'diminished Responsibility' 'jury Directions' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'good Character Directions' 'reckless Indifference to Human Life']

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 Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal After Jury Conviction for Murder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge failed to adequately and properly direct the jury in relation to provocation under s 23 Crimes Act 1900.' 'Whether the trial judge was required to direct the jury that provocation was not negatived by lack of proportionality or by an intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm under s 23(3)(a) and (c) Crimes Act 1900.' 'Whether it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Crown had excluded provocation.' 'Whether it was open to the jury to reject diminished responsibility under s 23A Crimes Act 1900.' 'Whether alleged irregularities in the conduct of the trial, including absence of a good character direction and leaving reckless indifference to the jury, caused a miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, read as a whole, the summing up adequately directed the jury on provocation under s 23, including the subjective loss of self-control test and the objective ordinary person in the position of the accused test. The trial judge was not required in the circumstances to give further directions under s 23(3)(a) or (c). It was reasonably open to the jury to reject the appellant's account of provocation, to conclude that provocation had been negatived beyond reasonable doubt, and to find that diminished responsibility had not been established. The alleged trial irregularities did not create a substantial possibility that the jury was mistaken or misled.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.']