Ryan v The Queen [1967] HCA 2

Ryan v The Queen [1967] HCA 2

Special leave was refused because the trial was conducted on the footing that the applicant was guilty of at least manslaughter and the real issue left was murder or manslaughter; the judge did not err in directing that no specific intent to wound was required for s. 98, and any involuntariness issue was not raised at trial in a way requiring a direction or warranting special leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Special Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence for Murder / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Appeal by the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application for special leave dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'manslaughter' 'felony Murder Under New South Wales Statute' 'armed Robbery and Wounding' 'voluntary Act and Involuntariness' 'jury Directions' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['murder' 'manslaughter' 'felony Murder Under New South Wales Statute' 'armed Robbery and Wounding' 'voluntary Act and Involuntariness' 'jury Directions' 'special Leave to Appeal']

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 Application for Special Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence for Murder / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Appeal by the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury in summing up the elements of murder under s. 18 of the Crimes Act.' 'Whether s. 98 of the Crimes Act required proof of a specific intent to wound or inflict grievous bodily harm during armed robbery.' 'Whether an involuntary or reflex pressing of the trigger could prevent the shooting from being the act of the accused causing death.' 'Whether any alleged misdirection warranted special leave where the defence at trial was confined to murder or manslaughter and did not seek acquittal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because the trial was conducted on the footing that the applicant was guilty of at least manslaughter and the real issue left was murder or manslaughter; the judge did not err in directing that no specific intent to wound was required for s. 98, and any involuntariness issue was not raised at trial in a way requiring a direction or warranting special leave.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application for special leave dismissed.']