Darkan v The Queen [2006] HCA 34

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ

GUMMOW, KIRBY, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJ

Matter No B87/2005

HOWARD RODNEY DARKAN APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Matter No B88/2005

GWENDOLINE CECILY DEEMAL-HALL APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Matter No B89/2005

MARLOW PHILLIP ANDREW McIVOR APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Darkan v The Queen

Deemal-Hall v The Queen

McIvor v The Queen

[2006] HCA 34

22 June 2006

B87/2005, B88/2005 & B89/2005

ORDER

In each matter, the appeal is dismissed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland

Representation

A J Rafter SC for the appellant in B87/2005 (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)

P J Callaghan SC with A W Moynihan for the appellant in B88/2005 (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)

M J Byrne QC for the appellant in B89/2005 (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)

M J Copley for the respondent in all matters (instructed by 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.

CATCHWORDS

Darkan v The Queen

Deemal-Hall v The Queen

McIvor v The Queen

Criminal Law – Common intention to prosecute unlawful purpose – Aiding the commission of an offence – Counselling the commission of an offence – Assault causing death – Appellants tried together and convicted of murder – Where Crown case relied on ss 7, 8 and 9 of the Criminal Code (Q) – Jury directed by trial judge that for the purpose of ss 8 and 9 of the Criminal Code (Q) "a probable consequence" was one which was "a real possibility or a substantial chance or a real chance" – Meaning of "a probable consequence" – Whether "probable" connotes something more than "possibility" or "real possibility" or "real chance" – Whether jury was misdirected.