R v Martin

Case [1984] HCA 23

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gibbs C.J., Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ.

THE QUEEN v. MARTIN

11 April 1984

Decision


GIBBS C.J., MURPHY, BRENNAN, DEANE and DAWSON JJ. The respondent in this case, who was not legally aided, seeks an order for costs. The Crown has unsuccessfully sought special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia which set aside the conviction of the respondent for manslaughter and ordered a new trial. While it is the established practice that an unsuccessful applicant for special leave to appeal against a conviction is not ordered to pay the costs of the Crown, it does not follow that the Crown should not be ordered to pay the costs when it makes an unsuccessful application for special leave to appeal against a decision of a Court of Criminal Appeal allowing an appeal by a convicted person. In the circumstances of the present case we consider that the Crown should be ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.

Orders


Order that the Crown pay the respondent's costs of the
application.

Details
AGLC
R v Martin [1984] HCA 23
Case
[1984] HCA 23
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v Martin* concerned an appeal by the applicant, Martin, against his conviction for the offence of rape. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the defence of honest and reasonable belief in consent under section 46 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW). The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the jury, in convicting Martin, had been properly directed on the elements of the defence of honest and reasonable belief in consent. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the trial judge's directions adequately conveyed to the jury that the belief in consent must be both honestly held and objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The High Court held that the trial judge's directions were insufficient. Gibbs C.J., Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ reasoned that the defence required an objective element of reasonableness, meaning that the belief, even if honestly held, must be one that a reasonable person in the position of the accused would have held. The jury needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the belief was not honestly held or, if honestly held, was not reasonable. The court emphasised that the reasonableness of the belief was to be assessed by the jury based on all the circumstances known to the accused at the time.

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

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.