Graham v The QueenCitation:[2016] HCA 27Before:French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:20 Jul 2016Case Number:B14/2016Read more

Graham v The QueenCitation:[2016] HCA 27Before:French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:20 Jul 2016Case Number:B14/2016Read more

The trial judge erred by failing to properly direct the jury on the law of self-defence and by not directing the jury on the defence of mistake under s 24 of the Criminal Code (Q), particularly in light of the prosecutor's suggestion of a 'consensual confrontation' without evidence of consent.

Parties
Appellant: Unknown (Appellant); Respondent: Unknown (Respondent)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Self Defence, Jury Directions, Mistake of Fact, Attempted Murder
Criminal Law Self Defence Jury Directions Mistake of Fact Attempted Murder

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown (Appellant)

Appellant

Unknown (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury as to self-defence under ss 271(1), 271(2), and 272(1) of the Criminal Code (Q)
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury as to the defence of mistake under s 24 of the Criminal Code (Q)

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by failing to properly direct the jury on the law of self-defence and by not directing the jury on the defence of mistake under s 24 of the Criminal Code (Q), particularly in light of the prosecutor's suggestion of a 'consensual confrontation' without evidence of consent.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • conviction quashed
  • new trial ordered