Irwin v The Queen [2018] HCA 8

Irwin v The Queen [2018] HCA 8

The jury, properly directed, could reasonably find beyond reasonable doubt that an ordinary person in the appellant’s position would reasonably have foreseen the possibility of grievous bodily harm resulting from a forceful push on a downward-sloping, hard-surfaced ramp, as demonstrated by the evidence, including...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Michael James Irwin; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Grievous Bodily Harm, Unreasonable Verdict, Foreseeability, Criminal Code (q), S 23(1)
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Grievous Bodily Harm Unreasonable Verdict Foreseeability Criminal Code (q), S 23(1)

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael James Irwin

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not holding that the jury’s verdict of guilty for unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal applied the incorrect test regarding reasonable foreseeability under s 23(1) of the Criminal Code (Q) by using 'could' instead of 'would'
  3. 3 Whether the level of force used by the appellant in pushing the complainant could support a finding of reasonable foreseeability of grievous bodily harm

Ratio Decidendi

The jury, properly directed, could reasonably find beyond reasonable doubt that an ordinary person in the appellant’s position would reasonably have foreseen the possibility of grievous bodily harm resulting from a forceful push on a downward-sloping, hard-surfaced ramp, as demonstrated by the evidence, including the appellant’s own account and medical testimony. Any error in the Court of Appeal’s language ('could' versus 'would') did not materially affect the outcome, and the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed