Basto v The Queen

The applicant, Robert Alexander de Castro Basto, a medical practitioner, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. Basto had been convicted in the Central Criminal Court of New South Wales on two counts: administering poison to his infant daughter with intent to murder, and attempting to commit suicide. The Court of Criminal Appeal had dismissed his appeal against these convictions.

The legal issues before the High Court concerned the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury. Specifically, the applicant argued that the judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the significance of the type of poison administered, particularly chloral hydrate, and its potential to weaken or negate the inference of an intent to murder. Additionally, the applicant contended that the admissibility and weight of confessional statements made by him to police officers should have been more thoroughly considered by the jury, particularly in light of his condition at the time of making those statements.

The High Court held that the argument regarding the significance of chloral hydrate was a matter of fact and probability, not law. The trial judge had clearly identified intent to murder as the central issue and had drawn the jury's attention to matters favouring and opposing the applicant. As the judge was not specifically asked to elaborate on the point concerning chloral hydrate, its omission from the summing-up was not a sufficient ground for special leave. Regarding the confessional statements, the Court affirmed that the admissibility of evidence is a matter for the judge, and once admitted, the jury's role is to assess its probative value. The Court disapproved of the approach in *Reg. v. Bass* which suggested the jury should determine voluntariness, reiterating that voluntariness is solely a test of admissibility. The Court found that the jury's attention had been sufficiently directed to considering whether the statements were made and how much weight to give them, and that the trial judge's charge was balanced, fair, and sufficient.

Consequently, the High Court found no ground upon which to grant special leave to appeal and refused the application.