Smith-Towns v Tasmania

The applicants, Smith-Towns and another, appealed their convictions for robbery in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The Crown had alleged that the applicants, by punching a cyclist and taking his bicycle, had committed robbery. However, the trial judge's directions to the jury, in addition to the Crown's case, left open a basis for conviction that had not been advanced by the Crown, effectively departing from the particulars of the charge.

The central legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were deficient, particularly concerning the necessary findings of fact and the application of the elements of robbery to the alternative basis of liability that emerged during the summing up. The Court also considered the meaning of the word "immediately" in the context of the offence of robbery and whether the directions given constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The Court reasoned that the trial judge's directions had introduced a new basis for conviction not put forward by the Crown, thereby departing from the particulars of the charge. This departure, coupled with directions that were deficient in explaining the required factual findings and the application of the elements of robbery to this unadvanced basis of liability, meant the jury was not properly guided. The Court found that the directions were inadequate in explaining the meaning of "immediately" in relation to the taking of the bicycle and the use of force, and that this deficiency, along with the departure from particulars, resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the convictions were quashed.