Hurst v Tasmania

Hurst appealed his conviction in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appeal concerned alleged misdirection and non-direction by the trial judge.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the relevant aspects of the criminal law. Specifically, the court considered whether there was a presumption favouring either written or oral directions, and if the directions given were sufficient to ensure a fair trial.

The Court held that there is no presumption as to the primacy of either written or oral directions given to a jury. The adequacy of directions must be assessed based on their clarity and comprehensiveness in the context of the specific trial. The Court found that the directions provided in this instance were insufficient, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

Consequently, the Full Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the appellant's conviction be quashed, and the appellant be granted bail pending a future appearance.