Irwin v The QueenCitation:[2018] HCA 8Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:14 Mar 2018Case Number:B48/2017Read more

Irwin v The QueenCitation:[2018] HCA 8Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:14 Mar 2018Case Number:B48/2017Read more

The Court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by evidence, and that the correct test under s 23(1) is whether an ordinary person would reasonably foresee the consequence, not merely could foresee it.

Parties
Appellant: Unknown (Appellant); Respondent: Unknown (Respondent)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Grievous Bodily Harm, Foreseeability, Unreasonable Verdict
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Grievous Bodily Harm Foreseeability Unreasonable Verdict

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

Parties

Unknown (Appellant)

Appellant

Unknown (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test under s 23(1) of the Criminal Code (Q) regarding foreseeability

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by evidence, and that the correct test under s 23(1) is whether an ordinary person would reasonably foresee the consequence, not merely could foresee it.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld