Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No. 1 of 1991 R. v B. in the matter of Section 30A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and in the matter of a Reference by the Director of Public Prosecutions for.. - [1992] FCA 1095

JUDOMENT No. _.L.fl

"C,/ ,

C A T C H W O R D S

CRIMINAL LAW - issue of self-defence - verdict of acquittal by direction - self-defence as a jury question - absence of discretion to direct acquittal - relevant principles

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s.30A

Druqs of Dependence Act 1989

Zecevic v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987)

162 CLR 645

Doney v. The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207

Towers (1984) 14 A Crim R 12

Jayasema [l9701 Ac 618

Haas (1986) 22 A Crim R 299

IN THE MATTER of Section 30A of the Federal court of

Australia Act 1976

and

IN THE MATTER of A Reference by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Australian Capital Territory on points of law arising from a trial

ACT G80 of 1991

Coram: Gallop, Davies and Beaumont JJ.

Date: 22 April 1992.

Place: Canberra

COURT

&QF AUSTRALIA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	1	No. ACT G80 of 1991
DISTRICT REGISTRY	1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 1991

R v B

IN THE MATTER of Section 30A of the Federal Court Act 1976

and

IN THE MATTER of A Reference by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Australian Capital Territory on points of law arising from a trial

Coram: Gallop, Davies and Beaumont JJ.

Date : 22 April 1992.

Place: Canberra

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT:

(1) Answers the question "whether the trial judge erred in law in directing a verdict of acquittalw

- Yes.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in

Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	1	No. ACT G80 of 1991
DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	1

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 1991

- -

R V B

IN THE MATTER of Section 30A of the Federal Court Act 1976

and

IN THE MATTER of A Reference by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Australian Capital Territory on points of law arising from a trial

Coram	: Gallop, Davies and Beaumont *33.*
Date	: 22 April 1992.
Place	: Canberra.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

On 29 October 1991 the accused was arraigned in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on an indictment containing one count of attempted murder and one count of attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm upon one and the same person. Upon his arraignment he pleaded not guilty. A jury was empanelled and his trial took place. At the end of the Crown case on 31 October 1991

counsel for the accused submitted that there was no evidence to support the elements of either offence, particularly that the accused intended to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. On 1 November 1991 the learned trial jQdge directed "that a verdict of acquittal be entered",

although not, it appears, on the ground of insufficiency of

. .…

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 Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No. 1 of 1991 R. v...

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No. 1 of 1991 R. v B. in the matter of Section 30A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and in the matter of a Reference by the Director of Public Prosecutions for.. [1992] FCA 1095
Case: [1992] FCA 1095
Decision Date: 22 Apr 1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns a reference made by the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding points of law arising from the trial of an individual, referred to as R v B. The Federal Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the trial judge erred in law by directing a verdict of acquittal on the basis that the accused must have been acting in self-defence. The case was heard by Gallop, Davies, and Beaumont JJ. The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had the authority to direct a verdict of acquittal on the basis that the accused acted in self-defence and if self-defence is always a question for the jury. The court held that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict of acquittal. The reasoning of the court was based on the principles established in previous cases such as Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) and Doney v The Queen. The court emphasised that the question of self-defence is essentially a jury question and that it is not the role of the trial judge to make a finding on whether the accused acted in self-defence. The court concluded that the trial judge had overstepped his authority by directing a verdict of acquittal, and that the matter should have been left to the jury to decide. This decision underscores the importance of the traditional division of functions between the judge and the jury in criminal trials.

Orders