Hurt v The King; Delzotto v The King

Hurt v The King and Delzotto v The King concerned appeals from convictions for serious indictable offences. The appellants, Hurt and Delzotto, were convicted on charges including aggravated robbery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Both appeals were heard together by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to adequately direct the jury on the concept of "possession" as it relates to the offence of aggravated robbery under section 97(1)(b) of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW). Specifically, the court considered whether the judge's directions were sufficient to ensure the jury understood that the prosecution bore the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the relevant article at the time of the robbery.

The High Court held that the trial judge's directions on possession were inadequate. Their Honours reasoned that the offence of aggravated robbery requires proof that the accused possessed the article at the time of the robbery, and that the jury must be clearly instructed on this element. The failure to provide a sufficiently clear direction on the meaning of possession, and the prosecution's onus in proving it, constituted a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the convictions of both Hurt and Delzotto were quashed.