Graham v The Queen

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the appellant, who had been convicted of attempted murder after firing shots during a confrontation with another man, Teamo, who was armed with a knife. The appellant sought to rely on the defence of self-defence under the *Criminal Code* (Qld). The appeal raised questions concerning the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding self-defence, particularly in light of a prosecutor's suggestion that the confrontation was "consensual," and whether the defence of honest and reasonable mistake under s 24 of the *Criminal Code* should have been left to the jury.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge erred in failing to adequately direct the jury on the defence of self-defence, specifically in relation to the prosecutor's submission that a "consensual confrontation" negated the element of assault required for self-defence, and whether the trial judge should have directed the jury on the defence of honest and reasonable but mistaken belief as to fact. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have clarified that consent to a confrontation did not equate to consent to an assault, and that if the appellant honestly and reasonably mistook Teamo's actions for an assault, the jury should have been directed to proceed on that basis.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal of Queensland. The Court held that the prosecutor's submissions, while referring to a "consensual confrontation," were directed at alternative findings of fact regarding the sequence of events and the nature of the interaction. The Court found that the prosecutor correctly identified lack of consent as an essential element of assault, and that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the meaning of assault and the relevant factual inquiries. Furthermore, the Court noted that no direction under s 24 of the *Criminal Code* was sought at trial, and there was no evidentiary basis to suggest that the appellant had honestly and reasonably mistaken Teamo's conduct for an assault if it was not one. The Court concluded that the trial judge's directions were adequate and that there was no error in failing to leave the defence of mistake to the jury.