Papadopoulos v The Queen [2011] HCATrans 24

In *Papadopoulos v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a conviction for armed robbery. The applicant, Mr. Papadopoulos, had been convicted in the District Court of New South Wales and his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales was dismissed. The High Court granted special leave to appeal.

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 duress. Specifically, the court had to determine if there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to raise an issue of duress, thereby necessitating a direction from the judge to the jury.

The High Court, comprising Gummow, Crennan and Kiefel JJ, found that the evidence presented at trial, including the applicant's testimony regarding threats made against him and his family, was capable of supporting a defence of duress. Their Honours reasoned that the jury was entitled to consider whether the applicant's participation in the robbery was a result of a genuine fear of death or serious injury, and that the absence of a specific direction on duress deprived the applicant of a proper consideration of this defence. The legal principle applied was that where evidence is adduced which is capable of supporting a defence, the trial judge is obliged to direct the jury on that defence.

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