R v Mullen [1938] HCA 12
On a charge under section 301 of the Queensland Criminal Code of wilful murder, the burden is not on the accused to satisfy the jury as to accident; it is for the Crown to establish a killing with the required intention, and to negative accident. A direction that the burden of proof of accident rests upon the accused is wrong in law.
- Parties
- Applicant: The King; Respondent: Henry Thomas Mullen
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland
- Outcome
- Special leave to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Wilful Murder, Onus of Proof, Accident Defence, Criminal Code (qld)
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The King
Applicant
Henry Thomas Mullen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether on a charge of wilful murder, the burden is on the accused to satisfy the jury on the issue of accident, or whether the Crown must prove intention and negative accident beyond reasonable doubt
Ratio Decidendi
On a charge under section 301 of the Queensland Criminal Code of wilful murder, the burden is not on the accused to satisfy the jury as to accident; it is for the Crown to establish a killing with the required intention, and to negative accident. A direction that the burden of proof of accident rests upon the accused is wrong in law.
Court Disposition
Special leave to appeal refused
Orders
- Application for special leave to appeal refused
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