Holden v The Queen

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Michael Stephen Holden against a decision of the Queen's Bench. The dispute arose from the trial judge's charge to the jury in Holden's murder trial. The applicant argued that the trial judge fundamentally erred by including the concept of felony murder as a basis for conviction, despite it being agreed that this was inappropriate and never raised by any party during the proceedings.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a fundamental error by a trial judge in leaving felony murder as a basis for conviction, when it was agreed to be inappropriate and not part of the Crown's case, could be rectified by a redirection to the jury after they had retired. This was considered of special importance given that the defence's entire case revolved around the applicant's lack of intention or his state of mind at the time of the killing, with no dispute that he caused the death. The Crown's case posited a plan to rob the deceased, with the death occurring during or after this act, while the defence focused on the applicant's intent, including the potential influence of drugs and alcohol.

The applicant contended that the trial judge's inclusion of felony murder, defined as the killing of a human being during the commission of another offence where intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm is presumed, was a significant misdirection. This was particularly problematic as the Crown's case, as presented, did not rely on this doctrine. The applicant's counsel highlighted that the trial judge's redirection, given after the jury had retired, was an attempt to retract this erroneous instruction, but argued that such an error could not be cured at that stage.