Robinson v The Queen

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Robinson, against his conviction for murder in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant had been found guilty by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal was heard by Kirby and Crennan JJ of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to adequately direct the jury on the defence of provocation. Specifically, the applicant argued that the jury should have been instructed that a "sudden or temporary loss of self-control" was not a necessary element of provocation, and that the defence could be established even if the act was deliberate.

The High Court considered the common law principles of provocation, noting that the defence requires an act or series of acts on the part of the deceased which caused the accused to lose self-control, and that the act of the accused must have been done in the heat of passion before there was time for passion to cool. However, their Honours clarified that the loss of self-control need not be "sudden" or "temporary" in the sense of being instantaneous or fleeting. Rather, the focus is on whether the accused's self-control was overcome by the provocation, irrespective of the precise temporal nature of that loss. The court emphasised that the jury must be instructed that the question is whether the provocation was such as to cause an ordinary person to lose self-control and that the accused did, in fact, lose self-control.

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