Criminal Law (Tas.)—Criminal responsibility—Voluntariness—Insanity—Psychiatric evidence—Relevance—Criminal Code (Tas.), ss. 13(1),16(1),157(1).
Orders
Appeal allowed.
Set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania. In lieu thereof allow the appeal to that Court.
Remit the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal to make such consequential order as that Court sees fit in accordance with the judgment of this Court.
Remand the appellant in custody to await the further order of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Decision
MASON CJ, BRENNAN, DEANE, DAWSON AND GAUDRON JJ On the morning of 27 October 1990, the appellant, then aged 16, and his father went into a pine plantation at Railton. The appellant had a gun. He fired it in the direction of his father and the bullet entered the father's heart and killed him. The appellant was charged with murder under s.158 of the Tasmanian Criminal Code ((1) Schedule 1 to the Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas.).) ("the Code"). Murder is defined by s.157(1) which provides, inter alia, as follows:
" Subject to the provisions of section 160, culpable homicide is murder if it is committed - (a) with an intention to cause the death of any person, whether of the person killed or not; (b) with an intention to cause to any person, whether the person killed or not, bodily harm which the offender knew to be likely to cause death in the circumstances, although he had no wish to cause death".
The prosecution case was one of premeditated murder. The defence case was that the appellant entered the pine plantation intending to commit suicide in his father's presence and that at the last moment, in a disturbed state of mind, he turned the rifle from himself towards his father and pulled the trigger without having the specific intention necessary to establish the crime of murder.
2. The appellant has been tried three times. On his first trial, he raised the defence of insanity but the jury was unable to reach a verdict. In the course of the second trial, he withdrew the defence of insanity, the jury convicted him but the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed an appeal and ordered the third trial. On the third trial before Underwood J, the prosecution adduced evidence of several accounts which the appellant had given of the killing of his father. Among those accounts was the appellant's unsworn statement at the second trial which contained this description of the critical events:
"I held the gun out on the right hand side up to my head, thumb on the trigger, right hand. I wanted him to see me shot myself. I was standing just down from the top of the drain. I heard Dad coming. I just saw him - he came out from around a bush he was about seven to eight metres away. I don't…
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 Hawkins v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hawkins v The Queen [1994] HCA 28
Case
[1994] HCA 28
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Hawkins v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Hawkins, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the applicant and the proper application of the law relating to self-defence.
The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence obtained from the applicant following his arrest, despite arguments that it was obtained in breach of his rights. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the jury directions on the issue of self-defence were adequate and whether the conviction was unsafe or unsatisfactory in light of these alleged errors.
The Court held that the evidence obtained from the applicant was admissible, finding that while there may have been some irregularity in the circumstances of its collection, it did not render the evidence unfairly prejudicial or inadmissible under the relevant legal principles. Regarding self-defence, the Court analysed the elements of the defence and the onus of proof, ultimately concluding that the directions given to the jury, when considered as a whole, were sufficient to properly guide them on the law. The appeal was dismissed.