R v Dce

The appellant appealed against her convictions of two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed. The trial had been conducted in the District Court of Queensland, where the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment. The appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in law by not leaving the defence of provocation to the jury's consideration, specifically by not directing the jury on the meaning of the word "insult" as it appeared in s 268 of the Criminal Code (Qld). The appellant submitted that there was at least some evidence that an "insult" had been conveyed, which would have entitled her to the defence of provocation.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was at least some evidence that an "insult" had been conveyed and whether the trial judge had erred in not directing the jury on the meaning of the word "insult". The court considered the evidence given during the trial and the submissions made by both parties. The court found that there was some evidence that could support a finding that an "insult" had been conveyed, specifically the disclosure by the complainants that they had taken the eldest child to visit his father in prison. The court held that this disclosure could be seen as an "insult" given the context of the appellant's allegations against the father. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in not directing the jury on the meaning of the word "insult". The court concluded that these errors amounted to a miscarriage of justice and set aside the convictions, ordering a new trial.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.