Legal Research
Cases
Wilson v The Queen

Wilson v The Queen

Case [1991] HCATrans 274 1 October 1991

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

~ --~~·,..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Adelaide No A24 of 1991
B e t w e e n -
DARYL STEWART WILSON

Appellant

and
THE QUEEN

Respondent

MASON CJ
BRENNAN J
DEANE J
DAWSON J
TOOHEY J
GAUDRON J

McHUGH J

Wilson(2)

1/10/91

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 1 OCTOBER 1991, AT 10.19 AM

MR S.W. TILMOUTH, QC:

May it please the Court, I appear

with my learned friend, MR G.D. ALCOCK, for the
appellant. (instructed by the Legal Services
Commission)

MR B.J. JENNINGS, QC:

May it please the Court, I appear

with my learned friend, MS A.M. VANSTONE, for the
respondent. (instructed by the Crown Prosecutor
for South Australia)

MASON CJ:

Yes, Mr Jennings.

Mr Tilmouth.

MR TILMOUTH:

May it please the Court, Your Honours have

probably received already a written outline of
submissions.

MASON CJ:	We have.
MR TILMOUTH:	They were submitted yesterday afternoon,

Your Honours. Whilst they might be longer than is
ordinarily the case, the endeavour was an attempt
to summarize the early principles to save some oral
argument.

MASON CJ: Yes.

MR TILMOUTH:

Indeed, Your Honours, subject to a few comments about the three key English cases in

paragraph 3.1, our argument proposes to begin by

reference to Newbury's case at the top of page 3.

Just as background matters, Your Honours, can I

make these points? Your Honours may have noticed

that on page 8 in book I the information is

contained.

The information pleads only murder:

section 11, Criminal Law Consolidation Act. manslaughter is available as an alternative remedy

at common law. Section 13 of the Criminal Law

Consolidation Act simply prescribes that:

Any person who is convicted of manslaughter

Your Honours, the other preliminary matter - shall be liable to be imprisoned for life -
and I do not open at large on the facts at this
stage; I defer that, if I may, until the summing up

is tackled. The Crown case was not a case which
was developed or argued on traditional murder
grounds, that is the traditional intention or
reckless murder; it was mounted solely, as
Your Honours would have seen from the Crown opening
and also from His Honour's summing up, on felony
murder alone.
The brief facts were that the deceased had

left the hotel late in the evening of the Friday

evening of 15 September. He was clearly affected

Wilson(2)

1/10/91

by alcohol. At autopsy his blood alcohol reading
was .179 which was probably fairly accurate if
death occurred shortly after, which seems to be the
medical evidence. He had made - to use a neutral
phrase - a nuisance of himself and as a result of
appellant. It was in contest just how hard that
some kind of exchange between the appellant and
blow was but there is no doubt, if the Court
pleases, on the medical evidence, at least as we
argue it, that the cause…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Wilson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wilson v The Queen [1991] HCATrans 274
Case: [1991] HCATrans 274
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning a conviction for murder. The appellant, Wilson, was accused of causing the death of the deceased. The Crown's case was not based on traditional grounds of intent or recklessness in causing death, but rather on the doctrine of felony murder, specifically that the deceased died during the commission of an unlawful act. The deceased, who had consumed alcohol, was involved in an altercation with the appellant, resulting in the deceased falling and striking his head, which caused a fatal brain injury.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant could be convicted of manslaughter. This question hinged on the applicable legal test for manslaughter, specifically the difference between English authorities and Australian (Victorian) authorities, particularly the principles established in *Holzer*. The appellant argued that the fatal injury was caused by the fall, not the initial blow, and that there was no foresight of death or really serious injury resulting from the blow. The appellant contended that if the English test for manslaughter applied, a conviction for manslaughter was likely inevitable, whereas the *Holzer* test would lead to a different outcome.

The Court was required to determine whether the English test, described as "relatively undemanding," or the *Holzer* principles, which presumably require a higher degree of foresight of serious injury, should apply to the facts. The appellant's submission was that the evidence did not support the foresight required by the *Holzer* test. The case therefore concerned the correct application of the law of manslaughter, particularly in circumstances where the death results from a fall following an unlawful act, and the differing legal standards that might apply depending on the jurisdiction of the precedent relied upon.

Orders