Quartermaine v The Queen [1980] HCA 29

Quartermaine v The Queen [1980] HCA 29

The convictions could not stand because the jury were effectively directed to consider an offence different from the first offence charged and were never asked to decide whether the essential elements of s. 283 (2) were proved. That serious departure from the proper course of a jury trial was not cured by the proviso to s. 689. On the second count, it could not safely be assumed that the jury would necessarily have rejected self defence merely because it rejected self defence on the first count, since the two counts involved different intents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Special Leave Against Convictions / Application for Extension of Time and Special Leave to Appeal From the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia
Outcome
Application for extension of time granted; special leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; convictions quashed and new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['attempted Murder' 'grievous Bodily Harm' 'jury Directions' 'self Defence' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'criminal Appeal Proviso' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['attempted Murder' 'grievous Bodily Harm' 'jury Directions' 'self Defence' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'criminal Appeal Proviso' '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 Appeal by Special Leave Against Convictions / Application for Extension of Time and Special Leave to Appeal From the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal should have allowed the verdicts to stand under the proviso to s. 689 of the Criminal Code despite errors of law at trial.' 'Whether the trial judge wrongly directed the jury on an offence under s. 283 (1) of the Criminal Code W.A. when the first count alleged an offence under s. 283 (2), and failed to leave an essential element of the charged offence to the jury.' 'Whether the withdrawal of self defence from the jury on the second charge caused a substantial miscarriage of justice.' "Whether the trial judge's further direction in response to the jury's question about firing into a group affected the convictions."]

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions could not stand because the jury were effectively directed to consider an offence different from the first offence charged and were never asked to decide whether the essential elements of s. 283 (2) were proved. That serious departure from the proper course of a jury trial was not cured by the proviso to s. 689. On the second count, it could not safely be assumed that the jury would necessarily have rejected self defence merely because it rejected self defence on the first count, since the two counts involved different intents.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time granted; special leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; convictions quashed and new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Application for extension of time in which to lodge application for special leave to appeal granted.' 'Application for special leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Quash the convictions and order a new trial.']