Willgoss v The Queen [1960] HCA 5

Willgoss v The Queen [1960] HCA 5

Special leave was refused because the trial judge's directions adequately and correctly put the insanity defence to the jury. The applicant's proposed distinction between intellectual apprehension of wrongness and emotional appreciation or feeling about the act had no foundation in law. Although the judge did not separately explain every detail of the evidence, the case was relatively simple, the material psychiatric evidence was read to the jury, and the jury had an adequate opportunity to apply the insanity tests to the facts.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Special Leave Application / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From an Order Refusing Leave to Appeal Against a Conviction for Murder
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'defence of Insanity' 'jury Directions' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['murder' 'defence of Insanity' 'jury Directions' '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 Special Leave Application / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From an Order Refusing Leave to Appeal Against a Conviction for Murder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury on the defence of insanity, particularly the requirement that the accused know that his act was wrong.' 'Whether knowledge that an act was wrong requires more than intellectual apprehension, including an appreciation or feeling about the effect of the act on others.' 'Whether the trial judge failed adequately to relate the evidence to the legal tests for insanity in the summing up.' 'Whether any remaining points justified the grant of special leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because the trial judge's directions adequately and correctly put the insanity defence to the jury. The applicant's proposed distinction between intellectual apprehension of wrongness and emotional appreciation or feeling about the act had no foundation in law. Although the judge did not separately explain every detail of the evidence, the case was relatively simple, the material psychiatric evidence was read to the jury, and the jury had an adequate opportunity to apply the insanity tests to the facts.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application for special leave to appeal dismissed.']