High Court of Australia
ORIGINAL _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TSsiGos
TH E_ QUEEN.
ORIGINAL
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judgment delivered at__SYDNEY .
@STGOS
Ve
THE QUEEN
SUDGMENT ARWICK C.J.
{8iGos
ve
THE QUEEN
The appellant was found guilty on the 25th day of February, 1964 by a jury in the Central Criminal Court at Sydney of the murder of his wife. His appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against his conviction and seeking a new trial was dismissed. He moves this Court for special leave to appeal upon the grounds, first, that there was sufficient evidence adduced at bis trial to require the question of whether or not on the day he shot his wife his actions in obtaining an automatic rifle from the boot of his car, removing it from its case, loading it with ten rounds of ammunition, and discharging five of them at, or in very close proximity to, his wife, of which some caused her death, were voluntary or involuntary, to be specifically submitted to the jury, and, second, that there was evidence of provocation by grossly insulting words, sufficient to entitle the jury to return a@ verdict of manslaughter.
The trial judge withdrew from the jury any issue of "antomatism" in the performance of the acts I have mentioned, and left to them a defence of provocation. But his instruction to the jury on the matter of provocation was defective having regard to the decision in Parker's case which had not been given at the date of the applicant's trial,
I am clearly of opinion that there was no material at the trial on which the jury could be allowed to find that the applicant was at the relevant time in such a state that his acts were automatic and involuntary and therefore the trial judge was not required to submit that question to them. I am also clearly of opinion that there was no evidence of provocation by grossly insulting words sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 25 of the Crimes Act (N.S.W.) and of the Common Law with respect to provocation. The deficiency in the summing up on this aspect of the case is therefore presently immaterial. TI would
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate