O'Neill v The Queen [1977] HCA 24

O'Neill v The Queen [1977] HCA 24

The statutory defence of irresistible impulse under s. 16(1)(b) applies only where the accused has, in substance, lost all power to resist the impulse due to mental disease. The trial judge's directions adequately conveyed this requirement, and the substitution of 'substantially' for 'in substance' did not misstate the law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Special leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['insanity' 'irresistible Impulse' 'construction of Statutory Defences' 'onus of Proof']
['criminal Law'] ['insanity' 'irresistible Impulse' 'construction of Statutory Defences' 'onus of Proof']

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 / Application for Special Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Proper construction of s. 16(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Tas.) regarding 'in substance deprived of any power to resist' and whether the trial judge correctly directed the jury on this statutory defence"]

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory defence of irresistible impulse under s. 16(1)(b) applies only where the accused has, in substance, lost all power to resist the impulse due to mental disease. The trial judge's directions adequately conveyed this requirement, and the substitution of 'substantially' for 'in substance' did not misstate the law.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Special leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']