Jemielita v The Queen

Case [1994] HCATrans 51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
              Perth            No P34 of 1993

B e t w e e n -

ZYLVAIN STANLEY JEMIELITA

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Order for costs

MASON CJ
BRENNAN J
DAWSON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 12 OCTOBER 1994, AT 10.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MASON CJ:   Having considered the application for costs made by the respondent, Justices Brennan, Dawson and I have come to the conclusion there should be an order for costs in favour of the respondent.  Accordingly, the application for special leave, which was refused on 31 May 1994, should be refused with costs.

AT 10.31 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Details
AGLC
Jemielita v The Queen [1994] HCATrans 51
Case
[1994] HCATrans 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Jemielita v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Jemielita, against his conviction for armed robbery. The applicant had been found guilty by a jury and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

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 issue of self-defence. Specifically, the applicant argued that the jury should have been instructed that if they entertained a reasonable doubt as to whether the applicant had acted in self-defence, they were bound to acquit him, even if they were not affirmatively convinced that he had acted in self-defence.

Brennan and Dawson JJ considered the principles governing the onus of proof in criminal matters, particularly in relation to defences. Their Honours affirmed that the onus rests on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They held that where a defence is raised, and there is evidence capable of supporting that defence, the jury must be directed that if they have a reasonable doubt about the existence of the defence, they must acquit the accused. This is because the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defence did not exist.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.