Harwood v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Todd Andrew Harwood against his conviction for murder. Harwood and a co-accused, Gary Hind, were jointly tried for the murder of Raymond Bowering, who was shot and killed during an armed robbery planned by the two men. The prosecution's case against Harwood was based on section 8 of the *Criminal Code* (Qld), which provides that where two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose, and an offence is committed which was a probable consequence of that purpose, each is deemed to have committed the offence.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the jury should have been instructed that Harwood could be convicted of manslaughter even if Hind was convicted of murder, and if so, whether the failure to provide such a direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal had previously held, by majority, that section 8 of the *Criminal Code* precluded the possibility of a conviction for a lesser offence by an accessory when the principal offender was convicted of murder.

The High Court, in its reasoning, referred to its earlier decision in *R v Barlow*, which had overturned the Court of Appeal's reasoning in this case. The Court affirmed that section 8 of the *Criminal Code* does not prevent a person deemed guilty by reason of a common unlawful purpose from being convicted of a lesser offence than the principal offender. The Court noted that the prosecution's case against Harwood was essentially the same as against Hind, and that the jury was not instructed on the possibility of a manslaughter conviction for Harwood if Hind was convicted of murder, nor was such a direction requested by Harwood's counsel. The Court concluded that the failure to instruct the jury on this possibility did not, in the circumstances, give rise to a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed.