Wilson v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Wilson, sought to challenge a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The core of the dispute concerned the common law test for manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether there was a conflict of authority between the South Australian Full Court and other Australian jurisdictions, particularly Victoria, regarding the test for manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The applicant argued that the South Australian court's approach differed from the line of authorities commencing with *Holzer's case* in Victoria, which had also been supported by decisions in Tasmania and Western Australia. The applicant also contended that New South Wales authorities were inconclusive and that a recent decision in the Australian Capital Territory favoured the *Holzer* construction. Furthermore, the applicant submitted that the High Court had not authoritatively pronounced on this common law test for Australia, with previous relevant statements being *dicta* that were not conclusive.

The applicant's submissions highlighted a divergence in judicial opinion on the policy considerations underpinning the different tests for manslaughter, as evidenced by the differing views of Justices Cox and King in the court below. The applicant also argued that the facts of the case, involving a punch to the face resulting in death from falling, demonstrated how the distinction between the English and Australian principles for manslaughter was significant. The applicant's counsel indicated that if special leave were granted on the manslaughter issue, they would also seek to reopen the question of self-defence, as it was considered to be inherently tied to the appeal.