Brawn v The King - [2024] HCATrans 85

[2024] HCATrans 085

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A20 of 2024

B e t w e e n -
MATHEW CUCU BRAWN
Appellant
and
THE KING
Respondent

GAGELER CJ
GORDON J
EDELMAN J
STEWARD J
GLEESON J
JAGOT J
BEECH‑JONES J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2024, AT 10.08 AM

MR S.G. HENCHLIFFE, KC: May it please the Court, I appear for the appellant with my learned friend MR A.J. CULSHAW. (instructed by Caldicott & Isaacs Lawyers)

MR M.G. HINTON, KC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friends MS K.J. DRAPER and MR W.M. SCOBIE for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (SA))

MS R.J. SHARP, KC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend MR T.M. WOOD on behalf of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, intervening. (instructed by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth))

MR B.A. HATFIELD, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend MS E.R. NICHOLSON on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), intervening. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW))

GAGELER CJ: Thank you, Mr Hatfield. Mr Henchliffe.

MR HENCHLIFFE: May it please the Court. The appellant’s notice of appeal raises two grounds of appeal. The first ground at paragraph 2 of the notice, which appears at appeal book 56, raises three issues. Firstly, the issue of principle underlying the grant of special leave of this matter, that is:

whether a materiality threshold exists for an error or irregularity to amount to a miscarriage of justice for the purpose of the common form appeal provision.

The second issue is: if such a materiality threshold does exist, what is it? The third issue, whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the admitted non-disclosure in this case did not result in a miscarriage of justice to the appellate.

The second ground of appeal is found at paragraph 3 of the notice of appeal. That concerns a factual error in that the Court of Appeal acted on a concession the appellant says he did not make. That error feeds back into the first ground of appeal and, the appellant submits, contributed to the Court of Appeal erroneously holding that there was no miscarriage of justice.

EDELMAN J: So, the second ground of appeal is not really to be taken as an independent ground of appeal.

MR HENCHLIFFE: It depends on the first ground of appeal, ultimately, yes. Your Honours, a notice of contention has been filed by the respondent – that appears at the appeal book, page 59. It is premised upon the Court first determining that no materiality threshold exists for an error or irregularity to amount to a miscarriage of justice. If that was the Court’s determination, the respondent invites the Court to apply the proviso and dismiss the appeal on the basis that the non‑disclosure…

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 Brawn v The King

Details

AGLC: Brawn v The King [2024] HCATrans 85
Case: [2024] HCATrans 85
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Brawn against his conviction for murder. The dispute arose from the Crown's case that Mr Brawn had intentionally caused the death of another person. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in law in their directions to the jury regarding the elements of the offence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge's directions on the mental element of murder, specifically concerning the requirement of intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, were adequate and correctly stated the law. This involved an examination of the relationship between the accused's subjective intention and the objective circumstances of the act.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the trial judge's directions were insufficient and likely to have misled the jury. The Court reiterated the principle that for a conviction of murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the specific intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The directions given failed to adequately convey this requirement, potentially allowing the jury to convict based on a finding of recklessness or a lesser intent. Consequently, the High Court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Orders