Irani v The Queen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S202 of 2002

B e t w e e n -
WALID IRANI
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2003, AT 2.51 PM

MR R.D. ELLIS: Your Honours, I appear for the respondent Crown. (instructed by S.E. O’Connor, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (New South Wales))

I understand that whilst the list indicated that there was an appearance, that that is, in fact, not so. That would seem to be consistent with the last page of the written submissions at application book 45 where counsel ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J: Yes. Well, I can say this, Mr Ellis. The Court holds a certificate from the Deputy Registrar that the applicant wishes to rely on his written argument only.

MR ELLIS: Thank you, your Honours.

GUMMOW J: Just excuse us, will you? In this matter, the Court has considered the written submissions, and we do not need to call on you, Mr Ellis.

MR ELLIS: Thank you, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: The Court is of the view that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal and, accordingly, the application is dismissed.

AT 2.53 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Irani v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction for murder. The appellant, Irani, had been found guilty of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and subsequently appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, which dismissed his appeal. The High Court then granted special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to direct the jury adequately on the defence of provocation. Specifically, the appeal raised questions about the proper application of the test for provocation, particularly concerning the element of whether the provocation was such as to make an ordinary person act as the accused did, and the role of the jury in assessing this objective element.

Gummow and Callinan JJ, in their joint judgment, considered the principles governing the defence of provocation under the relevant New South Wales legislation. They affirmed that the defence requires both a subjective element (that the accused was provoked) and an objective element (that the provocation was such as to cause an ordinary person to lose self-control and act in the way the accused did). The Court analysed the evidence presented at trial and the judge's summing up, concluding that the jury had been properly instructed on the law and that there was no misdirection. The judges found that the trial judge's directions, when read as a whole, adequately conveyed the legal requirements of the defence to the jury, and that the jury was entitled to reach the verdict it did.

The appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established