Arulthilakan v The Queen

The case of *Arulthilakan v The Queen* involved appeals by two appellants, Arulthilakan and Mkoka, against their convictions for murder in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appeals were heard by the High Court of Australia, following unsuccessful appeals to the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal. The central dispute concerned the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the elements of statutory murder under section 12A of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA).

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that the presentation of a knife during the course of an armed robbery constituted an "intentional act of violence" for the purposes of section 12A of the Act. Secondly, the Court considered whether the trial judge's reference to the "but for" test of causation amounted to a misdirection, and if the presentation of a knife could be regarded as a substantial cause of death. The Court also had to assess whether any misdirection led to a miscarriage of justice, particularly in light of the possibility that the jury's verdict might have been based on common law murder rather than statutory murder.

The High Court reasoned that the trial judge's directions on statutory murder were flawed. Specifically, the direction that the presentation of a knife in the course of an armed robbery automatically constituted an "intentional act of violence" was considered an error. The Court also found that the "but for" test of causation, as presented to the jury, was potentially misleading in the context of multiple contributing factors to the death. The Court noted that while the appellants had not raised the causation issue in the lower courts, it was a live question for determination. The Court concluded that these misdirections, particularly when considered cumulatively, meant the appellants had not received a trial according to law and that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeals be allowed, the convictions be quashed, and a new trial be ordered for each appellant.