MILETIC V. THE QUEEN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ©

a --MILETIC. =... |

! v. THE QUEEN if

j :

i

{

|

'REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at...... SEDNEY.

on MONDAY, 22nd DROME 1969

MILETIC

Ve

EEN

THE.

Special leave to appeal refused.

MILETIC

Ve

UEEN

THE

BARWICK C.J.

CUDGMENT,

MILETIC

Ve

THE QUEEN -

For reasons which I have expressed in the

application in Gammage vy. The Queen I would grant special leave in this case and dismiss the appeal.

MILETIC

Ve

THE QUEEN

JUDGMEN 1 KIfTO J.

MILETIC

Ve

. I agree that special leave to appeal shoulda be refused for reasons similar to those in Gammage v. The Queen.

MILETIC

Ve

TUDGAENT MENZIES J.

MIGETIC

This is an application for special leave to appeal against an order of the.New South Wales Court of

Criminal Appeal dismissing an appeal against the conviction of the applicant on a charge of murder.

The point to be decided is exactly the same as the point in Gammage v. The Queen, namely whether the learned trial judge's direction about the power of the jury to return a@ verdict of manslaughter was a misdirection. The direction

| i | | { | i | !

given is as follows:

"The charge here, of course, is murder and there is

" -no alternative charge of manslaughter but, notwith- standing that, the law provides that if you do not think that the act causing death amounts to murder but amounts to manslaughter, you may acquit him of murder but find him guilty of manslaughter. This may be done in cases where the act was done under what in law amounts to provocation, and I direct you

_ that there is no such evidence in this case as would justify you in reducing mrder to manslaughter, on the ground of provocation, The sanity of the accused man is not in question. There is no question here, on the evidence, of self-defence and it is difficult to envisage what findings of fact would justify you in taking the course of acquitting him of murder but finding him guilty of manslaughter.