The Queen v Keenan [2009] HCA 1

The Queen v Keenan [2009] HCA 1

The majority of the High Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury as to the common purpose and the offence were sufficient, and that it was not necessary that the jury be further directed to focus on the specific act (the shooting) causing the harm. The Court of Appeal erred in both its construction of s 8 and in finding that no retrial should be ordered.

Parties
Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: Francis Robert Keenan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Criminal Responsibility, Secondary Liability, Common Purpose, Jury Directions, Probable Consequence, Criminal Code (qld) S 8
Criminal Law Criminal Responsibility Secondary Liability Common Purpose Jury Directions Probable Consequence Criminal Code (qld) S 8

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Appellant

Francis Robert Keenan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation and application of s 8 of the Criminal Code (Qld) regarding common intention and secondary liability
  2. 2 Whether the directions given to the jury were correct in law
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in acquitting the respondent rather than ordering a new trial

Ratio Decidendi

The majority of the High Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury as to the common purpose and the offence were sufficient, and that it was not necessary that the jury be further directed to focus on the specific act (the shooting) causing the harm. The Court of Appeal erred in both its construction of s 8 and in finding that no retrial should be ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on 11 December 2007.
  • In their place, order that the appeal against conviction to that Court be dismissed.