Spigelman CJ at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 2; Kirby J at 132
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :
70042/00
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Hulme J
COUNSEL :
Mr Dawe QC with Mr Clout (Crown) Mr Haesler with Mr Wilson (Appellant)
SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor Western Aboriginal Legal Service
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - murder - appeal against convictions - intoxication - directions given to jury in relation to intoxication - reckless indifference to human life- whether an offence of specific intent under part 11A of Crimes Act - application of the proviso. - CRIMINAL LAW - shooting with intent to murder - appeal against convictions - intoxication - whether verdict unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence - whether jury should have entertained a reasonable doubt - whether a miscarriage of justice.
[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 R v Grant
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Grant [2002] NSWCCA 243
Case
[2002] NSWCCA 243
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Grant involved the appellant who was convicted of murder and appealed against his conviction. The dispute centred on the trial judge's direction to the jury concerning the effect of intoxication on the appellant's ability to form the necessary intent to commit murder. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The primary legal issue was whether the crime of murder under the provisions of part 11A of the Crimes Act required specific intent and whether the proviso to section 5(1) applied to mitigate the effect of intoxication. The court was required to determine if the trial judge's directions to the jury adequately addressed the impact of intoxication on the appellant's ability to form intent. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and whether a reasonable doubt should have been entertained, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice.
The court held that the offence of murder under the Crimes Act did not require specific intent, and thus, the proviso to section 5(1) did not apply. The trial judge's direction to the jury was deemed adequate, as it correctly informed them that voluntary intoxication did not negate the requisite intent for murder. The jury's verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and there was no miscarriage of justice. The court dismissed the appeal.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appellant's appeal against his convictions for murder. The appellant remained convicted and sentenced as determined by the lower court.