Irwin v The Queen [2018] HCA 8

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIEFEL CJ, BELL, GAGELER, NETTLE AND GORDON JJ

MICHAEL JAMES IRWIN APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Irwin v The Queen [2018] HCA 8 14 March 2018 B48/2017

ORDER

Appeal dismissed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland

Representation

S C Holt QC for the appellant (instructed by Nyst Legal)

G P Cash QC with M B Lehane for the respondent (instructed by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Irwin v The Queen

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Where appellant convicted of one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm – Where complainant suffered broken hip in three places following confrontation with appellant – Where appellant gave evidence that he pushed complainant causing complainant to stumble backwards three or four metres and fall to ground – Where s 23(1) of Criminal Code (Q) provides person not criminally responsible for event that ordinary person would not reasonably foresee as possible consequence – Where Court of Appeal observed there were "equally open" interpretations of evidence – Whether jury verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Where s 23(1) of Criminal Code (Q) provides person not criminally responsible for event that ordinary person would not reasonably foresee as possible consequence – Where Court of Appeal found it open to jury to conclude ordinary person could have foreseen injury of kind suffered by complainant – Whether Court of Appeal applied incorrect test – Whether any difference between what ordinary person "could" and "would" reasonably foresee.

Words and phrases – "could have foreseen", "grievous bodily harm", "possibility", "probability", "unreasonable verdict", "verdict unsupported by evidence", "would have foreseen".