Legal Research
Cases
Beavan v The Queen

Beavan v The Queen

Case [1954] HCA 41 30 August 1954

Charge

Appeal

Sentencing

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Evidence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

92 CLR 660

THE QUEEN

RESPONDENT. Criminal Law-Murder-Manslaughter-Direction as to verdict-Duty of judge

Verdict of manslaughter--Facts point to murder-Satisfaction of jury-Validity of verdict-Crimes Act 1900-1950 (N.S.W.), S. 23 (2).

Upon an indictment for murder where the proofs suffice to justify a verdict Aug. 19, 20

of murder, but on no view of the evidence which might reasonably be adopted would the crime amount to manslaughter and not murder, and counsel for the prisoner has not suggested to the jury the possibility of their returning a verdict of manslaughter, the judge is not under any duty to inform the jury that it is within their power to find a verdict of manslaughter, unless they ask a question upon the subject.

If the jury exercise their power to find a verdict of manslaughter, and it is certain that they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner unlawfully killed the deceased, their verdict of manslaughter will not be invalidated merely because the facts proved by the evidence upon which the jury must have acted amount in point of law to murder. The verdict must be taken to mean that the jury were satisfied of all the elements of the crime of murder except the existence of the requisite intention or other form of malice aforethought but that they were not prepared to find that this element

APPLICATION for special leave to appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales.

Doris Wilma Beavan was, in company with Raymond Leslie Harvey, tried at the Central Criminal Court, Sydney, on the charge of having feloniously murdered George Henry Brett at Millers Point, New South Wales, on 13th July 1951. On 6th December 1951, the jury returned a verdict against both accused of man- slaughter, and each accused was sentenced to thirteen years' im- prisonment with hard labour.

92 CLR 661

An appeal by Beavan against that conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 18th April 1952.

By notice of motion dated 26th July 1954, an application was made to the High Court on 19th August 1954, on behalf of Beavan for special leave to appeal to that Court against the said decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Further facts appear in the judgment hereunder. J. W. Shand Q.C., G. E. Quinn and J. H. Wolff, for the applicant. H. A. Snelling Q.C. (Solicitor-General for New South Wales) and W. J. Knight, for the respondent.

THE COURT delivered the following written judgment :- This is an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales confirming a conviction for manslaughter. The conviction took place upon an indictment for murder. The applicant, Doris Wilma Beavan, was indicted jointly with Raymond Leslie Harvey for the murder on 13th July 1951, of one George Henry Brett.

George Henry Brett was an elderly man who lived in a third-floor attic room of a lodging-house in Agar Steps, Millers Point. On the night…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beavan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Beavan v The Queen [1954] HCA 41
Case: [1954] HCA 41
Decision Date: 30 August 1954

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The applicant, Doris Wilma Beavan, had been indicted jointly with Raymond Leslie Harvey for the murder of George Henry Brett. The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against both accused, and Beavan was sentenced to thirteen years' imprisonment with hard labour. Her subsequent appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was dismissed.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had a duty to direct the jury on the possibility of a manslaughter verdict, and if so, whether the directions given were sufficient. Specifically, the court considered the circumstances under which a judge must inform a jury of their power to return a manslaughter verdict on a murder indictment, particularly when the evidence appears to support only a murder conviction and defence counsel has not raised the possibility of manslaughter. The court also addressed the validity of a manslaughter verdict when the facts proved might, in law, amount to murder.

The High Court held that a judge is not obligated to inform the jury of their power to return a manslaughter verdict on a murder charge unless the jury specifically asks about it, provided that no view of the evidence reasonably open to the jury would support a finding of manslaughter rather than murder, and the defence has not suggested such a possibility. However, if the jury does return a manslaughter verdict, it will not be invalidated merely because the evidence points to murder, as the verdict signifies the jury's satisfaction that the unlawful killing occurred but their unwillingness to find the requisite malice aforethought. This principle applies under common law and section 23(2) of the Crimes Act 1900-1950 (N.S.W.).

The application for special leave to appeal was refused.

Orders