Meizer v The Queen

Meizer was the applicant and The Queen was the respondent in proceedings before the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the applicant's conviction for murder, following which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The applicant sought special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, which had dismissed his appeal against conviction.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to direct the jury on the defence of provocation, or alternatively, whether the jury's verdict of guilty of murder was unsafe and unsatisfactory in the circumstances. This involved an examination of the evidence presented at trial and whether it was capable of supporting a finding of provocation, which would reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter.

McHugh and Gummow JJ considered the evidence relating to the events preceding the deceased's death, including the applicant's state of mind and the deceased's conduct. Their Honours applied the principles established in *Stingel v The Queen* and *Osland v The Queen*, which require a judge to leave the issue of provocation to the jury if there is *any* evidence, however slight, upon which a jury might find that the elements of provocation were established. They concluded that, on the evidence before the jury, there was no sufficient evidentiary basis to raise the issue of provocation, and therefore no error in the trial judge's directions.

Special leave to appeal was refused.