PANARELLO V. THE QUEEN
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
No misdirection occurred in the summing up regarding onus of proof, and the objection to the insufficiency of the directions on insanity cannot be sustained. The appeal is dismissed.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
02
Material facts
Parties
Panarello
Appellant Counsel: Mr. WrightThe Queen
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge correctly directed the jury regarding the onus of proof on the Crown
- 02
Whether the trial judge adequately placed the medical evidence on insanity before the jury
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Objection to the trial judge's summing up regarding the onus of proof and inadequate placing of medical evidence on insanity before the jury.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Legal principle 1
Onus rests upon the Crown to prove the accused's guilt.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
No misdirection occurred in the summing up regarding onus of proof, and the objection to the insufficiency of the directions on insanity cannot be sustained. The appeal is dismissed.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
ORIGIN.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
PANARELLO. —
nen AE. QUEEN —
as
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Oral Judgment delivered at_ SYDNEY... on... Friday, 11th Decaaber 1964
'A.C. Brooks, Government Pinter, Melbourne ©.7639,60
PANARELLO
ve
THE QUEEN
ORAL JUDGMENT JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY BARWICK C.J.
CORAM: BARWICK C.J. kITo J. TAYLOR J. WINDEYER J. OWEN J.
PANARELLO
Mr. Wright in this case has put before us, in a careful way, all we think that could be said in support of the appeal. He raises, first of all, on the appeal proper, an objection to the summing up of his Honour in respect of the onus of proof resting upon the Crown. We are of opinion that, taken in its totality in this case, there was no misdirection by his Honour with respect to the onus resting upon the Crown.
Mr. Wright also raises a matter which is not a matter of law, by way of objection to the summing up, in saying that his Honour inadequately placed before the jury the evidence of the medical witness on the question of the accused's capacity at the time of the commission of the act, on the issue of insanity. We have considered what Mr. Wright has put before us, but we are of opinion that this objection to the summing up cannot be sustained.
In those circumstances, the appeal will be dismissed.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.