Legal Research
Cases
Dookheea v The Queen

Dookheea v The Queen

Case [2016] VSCA 67 12 April 2016

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0283

KRITSINGH DOOKHEEA	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, REDLICH JA and CROUCHER AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	6 August and 28 October 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 April 2016 (first revision 26 April 2016)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 67
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Dookheea v The Queen (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Emerton J, 4 December 2014)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Murder – Intent – Intent must accompany act(s) which caused death – Whether directions adequate – Whether unanimity direction required – Standard of proof – Whether judge erred in explaining ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – Appeal allowed – Retrial ordered – Jury Directions Act 2013 ss 20–21.

WORDS AND PHRASES – ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person (6 August 2015) Ms C Boston with Mr A Imrie (28 October 2015)	Spicer Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr P Kidd SC (6 August 2015) Ms D Piekusis (28 October 2015)	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
REDLICH JA
CROUCHER AJA:

Overview

Following a 10 day trial in the Supreme Court, a jury found the applicant, Kritsingh Dookheea (‘KD’)[1] guilty of the murder of Faizal Zazai. He was sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years.[2]
[1]Abbreviations are for ease of reference only.
[2]DPP v Dookheea [2014] VSC 611 [33].

KD applied for leave to appeal against his conviction. For reasons which follow, we would allow the appeal, quash the conviction and order a retrial.

The grounds of appeal

The grounds of appeal were as follows:

Ground 1: The learned trial judge erred in directing the jury that, in order to convict the applicant, they did not have to be satisfied ‘beyond any doubt’ that he had the requisite mens rea, ‘but beyond reasonable doubt’, and that they ‘[did] not have to work out definitively what Mr Dookhea’s state of mind was’ when he inflicted the injuries that caused the deceased’s death.
Ground 2: The learned trial judge erred in directing the jury that the applicant’s state of mind could be judged solely at the time he applied pressure to or compressed the deceased’s neck on the front lawn, in circumstances where either:
(i)no reasonable jury could exclude the possibility that the deceased’s death was caused by a combination of injuries inflicted on the front lawn and in the spare room; or
(ii) the evidence was at least capable of giving rise to that reasonable possibility.[3]

Ground 3: The judge erred in failing to direct the jury that they had to be unanimous as to the act or acts causing death before they could return a verdict of guilty of murder.[4]

[3]Emphasis in original.

[4]The third ground was not formulated as such. The issue the ground raises was discussed in argument at the hearing on 28 October 2015. Counsel made oral submissions and were…

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 Dookheea v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Dookheea v The Queen [2016] VSCA 67
Case: [2016] VSCA 67
Decision Date: 12 April 2016 (first revision 26 April 2016)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the matter of Dookheea v The Queen was heard. The appellant, Dookheea, was convicted of murder. The central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding intent and the standard of proof were adequate and correct. Specifically, the court examined whether the judge properly explained the requirement that intent must accompany the act(s) causing death and if the jury’s decision needed to be unanimous.

The court considered whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the elements of the crime of murder, particularly the necessity for intent to accompany the act(s) that caused death. Additionally, the court assessed the adequacy of the jury directions under the Jury Directions Act 2013. The court also scrutinised whether the trial judge erred in his explanation of the standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, and if such an error could have influenced the jury’s decision.

The High Court found that the trial judge had not sufficiently directed the jury on the requirement that intent must accompany the act(s) which caused death, thus necessitating a retrial. The court held that the judge’s explanation of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ was also deficient, potentially impacting the jury’s decision-making process. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a retrial was ordered. The court emphasised the importance of clear and precise jury directions in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving serious charges such as murder.

Orders