Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIEFEL CJ,BELL, GAGELER, KEANE, NETTLE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJDIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS REFERENCE NO 1 OF 2017Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017[2019] HCA 920 March 2019M129/2018ORDER1.Appeal allowed.2. Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 23 March 2018 answering the point of law raised for consideration pursuant to s 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), and in lieu thereof answer the point of law as follows: "The direction commonly referred to as the 'Prasad direction' is contrary to law and should not be administered to a jury determining a criminal trial between the Crown and an accused person." 3. The Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) is to pay the reasonable costs of the acquitted person.On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria RepresentationK E Judd QC with D I Piekusis for the appellant (instructed by Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria)O P Holdenson QC with J P O'Connor for the acquitted person (instructed by James Dowsley & Associates)Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSDirector of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017Criminal practice – Trial – Jury directions – Prasad direction – Where accused charged with murder – Where Prasad direction given over objection at close of Crown case – Where another Prasad direction given at close of defence case – Whether Prasad direction contrary to law and should...