Lindsay v The Queen [2015] HCA 16

Lindsay v The Queen [2015] HCA 16

The trial judge did not err in leaving the issue of provocation to the jury; there was evidence capable of sustaining both the subjective and objective limbs of provocation. The Court of Criminal Appeal erred in holding, as a matter of law, that no reasonable jury could fail to be satisfied that the objective limb was not met. Consequently, the application of the proviso was not open: the appellate court could not conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the outcome would necessarily have been the same had the correct directions been given. The appeal was therefore allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Joseph Lindsay; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Murder, Defences, Provocation, Appeal, Partial Defence, Application of Proviso
Criminal Law Murder Defences Provocation Appeal Partial Defence Application of Proviso

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Joseph Lindsay

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in leaving provocation to the jury as a partial defence to murder
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in concluding that the evidence could not satisfy the objective limb of provocation
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in applying the proviso to dismiss the appeal when the prosecution did not invite its application

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in leaving the issue of provocation to the jury; there was evidence capable of sustaining both the subjective and objective limbs of provocation. The Court of Criminal Appeal erred in holding, as a matter of law, that no reasonable jury could fail to be satisfied that the objective limb was not met. Consequently, the application of the proviso was not open: the appellate court could not conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the outcome would necessarily have been the same had the correct directions been given. The appeal was therefore allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia made on 3 June 2014.
  • Order that the appeal to that Court be allowed.