Criminal Law—Attempt—Attempted murder—Mental element—Intent to kill—Intent dependent on inference from other facts—Guilty verdict sustainable only where intent only reasonable inference open.
Decisions
MASON C.J., DAWSON AND TOOHEY JJ. The appellant was presented for trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria upon four counts. The first count was that of the murder of Gaetano Giovanni Battaglia. The second count was that of the attempted murder of Nino Peter Salvo. The third and fourth counts, which were alternatives to the second count, were respectively a count of intentionally causing serious injury to Salvo without lawful excuse and a count of recklessly causing serious injury to Salvo without lawful excuse. The appellant was convicted of manslaughter on the first count, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for six years, and of attempted murder on the second count, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. The learned trial judge directed that the appellant serve four and a half years of the sentence for manslaughter concurrently with the sentence for attempted murder and he set a minimum term of four years and nine months before the appellant was to be eligible for parole.
2. The charges against the appellant arose out of a disturbance that occurred in the sports hall at the Werribee Special Development School during the evening of Tuesday, 30 September 1986. It appears that on the preceding Friday a dispute had arisen at a discotheque at the Italian Social Club at Werribee between a friend of the appellant called Walsh and another person called Maugeri. As a result it was arranged that a kick boxing fight would be held on Sunday. Walsh was to participate in this fight and he requested the appellant to be at the fight in case anyone else attempted to intervene. The fight did not eventuate. However, evidence was given that, on the Sunday, Walsh and the appellant approached a group of people, including one Depasquale, and that the appellant said to them something like "Remember me? I am back". On being told that he "was after the wrong people", the appellant apparently walked away. Evidence was also given that the following day, when Depasquale drove past the appellant, the appellant walked off the footpath and pointed his fingers towards Depasquale in the manner of pointing a gun. And there was evidence that threats of violence, of which the appellant was aware, were made against the appellant by Depasquale and persons who would appear to have been associates of Depasquale.
3. Walsh was to conduct dancing classes on the Tuesday evening at the sports hall and he requested the appellant to be there. Early on the Tuesday evening and before the appellant arrived at the hall, Depasquale and another person went there, had an altercation with Walsh during which Walsh was assaulted, and left. There was some evidence that…
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 Knight v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Knight v The Queen [1992] HCA 56
Case
[1992] HCA 56
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Knight, against his conviction for murder. The applicant had been found guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland and subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal of Queensland, which dismissed his appeal. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence and the fairness of the trial process.
The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions and whether the summing up to the jury was adequate, particularly in relation to the issue of self-defence. A further issue concerned the proper application of the rules of evidence concerning the admissibility of confessions.
The Court held that the admission of evidence of prior convictions was prejudicial and likely to have improperly influenced the jury's verdict, thereby miscarrying justice. The majority found that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the use of this evidence were insufficient to mitigate its prejudicial effect. Furthermore, the Court considered that the summing up on the issue of self-defence lacked clarity and may not have adequately presented the applicant's case to the jury. The principles of fairness and the proper application of the rules of evidence regarding character evidence and the onus of proof in relation to self-defence were central to the Court's reasoning.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.