Murray v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Murray, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during police investigations and the proper application of the law relating to self-defence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence that the applicant had remained silent when questioned by police after being cautioned. Further, the Court had to consider whether the jury had been adequately directed on the issue of self-defence, particularly in relation to the applicant's subjective belief as to the necessity of using force.

The Court held that the admission of evidence of the applicant's silence after caution was an error. It was established that a person cautioned under the relevant legislation has a right to remain silent, and evidence of that silence should not be admitted as it could be unfairly prejudicial. Regarding self-defence, the Court reiterated that the jury must consider the circumstances as the accused believed them to be, and then determine whether the force used was a reasonable response to that perceived threat. The subjective belief of the accused is paramount, though the reasonableness of the response is assessed objectively against those believed circumstances.

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