Georgiou v The Queen

In *Georgiou v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal against a conviction for armed robbery. The appellant, Georgiou, had been found guilty by a jury and subsequently appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, which dismissed his appeal. The High Court then granted special leave to appeal.

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 duress. Specifically, the court had to determine if the judge's directions were sufficient to ensure the jury understood the elements of duress, including the requirement that the threat must be of death or serious injury, and that the accused must have reasonably believed they had no opportunity to escape the threatened harm.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the trial judge's directions on duress were inadequate. Their Honours explained that the defence of duress requires the accused to have acted under an immediate threat of death or serious injury, and to have reasonably believed that there was no lawful or reasonable escape from the threatened harm. The jury must be clearly instructed on these elements and on the onus of proof. In this instance, the directions given did not sufficiently convey the immediacy and inescapable nature of the threat required for the defence to be available, nor did they adequately explain the objective reasonableness of the accused's belief.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.