R v Musa (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 247
The jury was directed that a voluntary act at law is a willed movement of the muscles, according to the narrow view from Ryan v The Queen, and the concept of voluntariness pertains only to the actus reus and not to a deliberate or intended act.
- Parties
- Crown: Rex; Accused: Jackline Sabana Musa
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 March 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal (murder Trial) / Trial (jury Directions on Voluntariness)
- Outcome
- Jury directed in accordance with narrow interpretation of voluntariness
- Legal Topics
- Murder, Manslaughter, Jury Directions, Voluntariness, Actus Reus, Mens Rea
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rex
Crown
Jackline Sabana Musa
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal (murder Trial) / Trial (jury Directions on Voluntariness)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether jury directions on voluntariness should require the act to be 'deliberate' or merely a willed movement of the muscles
- 2 Interpretation of voluntariness as part of the actus reus in murder and manslaughter cases
Ratio Decidendi
The jury was directed that a voluntary act at law is a willed movement of the muscles, according to the narrow view from Ryan v The Queen, and the concept of voluntariness pertains only to the actus reus and not to a deliberate or intended act.
Court Disposition
Jury directed in accordance with narrow interpretation of voluntariness
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment