purpose, which act likely to endanger human life- Violent and repeated assaults causing death-Conviction-Misdirection-Substitution of verdict of manslaughter -The Criminal Code (Q.), SS. 302 (1), (2), 576, 668F (2). June 25, 28.

Section 302 of The Criminal Code provides, inter alia, that a person who unlawfully kills another, under any of the following circumstances, is guilty of murder: (1) If the offender intends to do to the person killed or to Fullagar and

some other person some grievous bodily harm (2) If death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life "

Held, that par. (2) relates to an act of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life when the act is done in the prosecution of a further purpose which is unlawful.

The accused was convicted of murder on evidence which showed that he assaulted the deceased woman by violent and repeated attacks on her following an altercation and that she died as a result of his blows. The trial judge directed the jury that the accused could be found guilty under S. 302 (1) if he intended to do to the deceased grievous bodily harm and had

SO caused her death and alternatively under S. 302 (2) if he unlawfully assaulted the deceased in such a way as to be likely to endanger her life and her death resulted.

Held that this was a misdirection, in that the evidence did not warrant a conviction for murder within S. 302 (2).

Held further that the jury had not been properly directed as to the intent necessary to constitute murder under S. 302 (1) or as to the distinction between murder and manslaughter. But held that, as it was apparent from the verdict

84 CLR 171

that the jury must have been satisfied of facts which would amount to man- slaughter, the power given by S. 668F of the Criminal Code should, in the circumstances, be exercised, and a verdict of manslaughter substituted for

Decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland Hughes v. The King, (1951) Q.S.R. 237, reversed.

APPEAL from the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland.

Stanley Hughes and Dorothy May Hughes, his wife, were charged jointly at the Criminal Sittings, Brisbane, upon an indictment that they murdered one Mary Ann Morgan on 29th November 1949.

They pleaded not guilty and after a trial the jury returned a verdict of murder. Against this conviction they appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal. That court (Macrossan C.J., Philp and Townley JJ.) allowed the appeal of Dorothy May Hughes, quashing her conviction, but dismissed the appeal of Stanley Hughes. Hughes v. The King 1.

From this decision Stanley Hughes applied to the High Court…

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 Hughes v The King

Details

AGLC: Hughes v The King [1951] HCA 34
Case: [1951] HCA 34
Decision Date: 28 June 1951

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an application for special leave to appeal from an order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland, which had dismissed an appeal against a conviction for murder. The applicant, Stanley Hughes, had been convicted of murdering Mary Ann Morgan, with his wife, Dorothy May Hughes, also charged but acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter, a conviction later quashed on appeal. The central dispute concerned the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the definition of murder under the Queensland Criminal Code.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had misdirected the jury concerning the application of section 302(2) of the Criminal Code, which defines murder as death caused by an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose likely to endanger human life, and whether the jury had been properly directed on the distinction between murder and manslaughter, particularly concerning the intent required for murder under section 302(1). The applicant contended that section 302(2) was not applicable to the facts of the case and that the direction given allowed for a conviction on a basis not supported by the evidence, potentially excluding a finding of manslaughter.

The High Court held that the trial judge's direction regarding section 302(2) was erroneous, as this provision applies when an act is done in the prosecution of a *further* unlawful purpose, not when the act causing death *is* the unlawful purpose itself. The Court found that the evidence did not support a conviction under section 302(2) and that this direction, coupled with a lack of clear direction on the intent required for murder under section 302(1) and the distinction from manslaughter, constituted a serious misdirection. However, the Court was satisfied that the jury must have found facts amounting to manslaughter, as the assault was clearly established and caused death.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, discharged the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and substituted a verdict of guilty of manslaughter for the verdict of guilty of murder. The matter was remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland for the passing of an appropriate sentence for manslaughter.

Orders