{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Murray v The Queen
Download as PDF
Download as Word
Highlights
My Notes
Collections
Create a New Collection
Overview
Full Text
{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Details
Case
Agency Issuance Number
Published Date
Murray v The Queen
[2002] HCA 26
Tags
No tags available
Case
Murray v The Queen
[2002] HCA 26
•
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAGAUDRON, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJWILLIAM JOHN MURRAY APPELLANTANDTHE QUEEN RESPONDENTMurray v The Queen[2002] HCA 2620 June 2002B11/2002ORDER1.Appeal allowed.2.Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of Queensland dated 24 August 1999 and, in lieu thereof, order that:(a) the appellant's appeal to that Court be allowed;(b) the appellant's conviction be quashed and a new trial be had.On appeal from the Supreme Court of QueenslandRepresentation:A J Rafter for the appellant (instructed by Dearden Lawyers)L J Clare for the respondent (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland))Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSMurray v The QueenCriminal law – Homicide – Unlawful killing – Murder – Deceased died from gun shot wounds to chest – Whether shooting was an unwilled act or an event occurring by accident – What is "the act causing death" – Whether trial judge erred in failing to direct jury about unwilled acts – Whether it is for the jury to decide what is "the act causing death" – Whether trial judge's failure to direct jury gave rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice so that a new trial should be ordered.Onus of proof – Whether the trial judge erred in directions to jury about onus of proof – Whether trial judge's direction to jury was apt to mislead the jury about the decision which was to be made.Words and phrases – "act" – "event" – "accident".The Criminal...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
Murray v The Queen
[2002] HCA 26
•
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAGAUDRON, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJWILLIAM JOHN MURRAY APPELLANTANDTHE QUEEN RESPONDENTMurray v The Queen[2002] HCA 2620 June 2002B11/2002ORDER1.Appeal allowed.2.Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of Queensland dated 24 August 1999 and, in lieu thereof, order that:(a) the appellant's appeal to that Court be allowed;(b) the appellant's conviction be quashed and a new trial be had.On appeal from the Supreme Court of QueenslandRepresentation:A J Rafter for the appellant (instructed by Dearden Lawyers)L J Clare for the respondent (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland))Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSMurray v The QueenCriminal law – Homicide – Unlawful killing – Murder – Deceased died from gun shot wounds to chest – Whether shooting was an unwilled act or an event occurring by accident – What is "the act causing death" – Whether trial judge erred in failing to direct jury about unwilled acts – Whether it is for the jury to decide what is "the act causing death" – Whether trial judge's failure to direct jury gave rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice so that a new trial should be ordered.Onus of proof – Whether the trial judge erred in directions to jury about onus of proof – Whether trial judge's direction to jury was apt to mislead the jury about the decision which was to be made.Words and phrases – "act" – "event" – "accident".The Criminal...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>