Stevens v The Queen [2005] HCA 65

Stevens v The Queen [2005] HCA 65

The trial judge erred in refusing to direct the jury on the defence of accident under s 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Q). The evidence, including expert ballistics evidence and the appellant's references to an accident, provided a factual basis on which the jury could have found that the fatal shooting was accidental within the statutory test. The absence of a direction on accident deprived the appellant of having the jury consider a real issue arising from the evidence and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the conviction must be quashed and a new trial ordered.

Parties
Appellant: Laurie Stevens; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Unlawful Killing, Murder, Manslaughter, Accident, Jury Directions, Statutory Construction, Criminal Responsibility
Criminal Law Unlawful Killing Murder Manslaughter Accident Jury Directions Statutory Construction Criminal Responsibility

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laurie Stevens

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in declining to direct the jury on the defence of accident under s 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Q)
  2. 2 Whether the defence of accident was open on the evidence
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge should have left manslaughter to the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in refusing to direct the jury on the defence of accident under s 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Q). The evidence, including expert ballistics evidence and the appellant's references to an accident, provided a factual basis on which the jury could have found that the fatal shooting was accidental within the statutory test. The absence of a direction on accident deprived the appellant of having the jury consider a real issue arising from the evidence and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the conviction must be quashed and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order 2 of the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on 6 April 2004 is set aside.
  • In its place, order that the conviction is quashed and there be a new trial.