Dunn v The Queen

The case of *Dunn v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction for murder. The appellant, Dunn, had been found guilty of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland and subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal of Queensland, which dismissed his appeal. Dunn then sought and was granted special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to direct the jury adequately on the defence of provocation. Specifically, the question was whether the judge's summing up had sufficiently explained to the jury that they were required to consider whether the provocation was such as to cause a reasonable person to lose self-control, and if so, whether Dunn had in fact lost self-control.

Kiefel and Gordon JJ found that the trial judge's directions on provocation were inadequate. Their Honours explained that the defence of provocation requires a two-stage test: first, whether the provocation was sufficient to cause a reasonable person to lose self-control, and second, whether the accused person actually lost self-control. The judge's summing up had failed to clearly articulate this two-stage test, particularly the objective element of whether a reasonable person would have lost self-control. This omission meant the jury may not have properly considered all the elements of the defence.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction for murder, and ordered a new trial.