Smyth v The Queen [1957] HCA 24

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. McTiernan, Fullagar, Kitto and Taylor JJ. Smyth v The Queen [1957] HCA 24

ORDER Application refused.

Cur. adv. vult.

The Court delivered the following written judgment:—

April 20 Dixon C.J., McTiernan, Fullagar, Kitto and Taylor JJ.

Having considered the evidence in this case we think that a jury properly directed and understanding the question could not reasonably fail to draw the inference that when the appellant struck the deceased several times with the wrench he intended to cause him what would amount to grievous bodily harm.

For that reason we think that we ought not to grant special leave to appeal notwithstanding that we think that the direction complained of is not in accordance with law and ought not to have been given. In this Court disapproval has been expressed on more than one occasion of the use, where a specific intent must be found, of the supposed presumption, conclusive or otherwise, that a man intends the natural, or natural and probable, consequences of his acts: see Stapleton v. The Queen [3] ; Baily v. Baily [4] ; Deery v. Deery [5] ; Gow v. White [6] , per O'Connor J. The ruling of Lord Goddard C.J. in Reg. v. Ward [7] , is difficult to reconcile with his Lordship's statement in R. v. Steane [1] , which we think is to be preferred and is certainly sound. The fact is that, as Cussen J. remarked in Cox v. Smail [2] , the statement that a person must be held to intend the natural consequences of his act merely conceals the true position.

1. (1952) 86 C.L.R. 358, at p. 365. 2. (1952) 86 C.L.R. 424, at p. 427. 3. (1954) 90 C.L.R. 211, at pp. 219-223. 4. (1908) 5 C.L.R., at p. 876. 5. (1956) 2 W.L.R. 423, at p. 428. 6. (1947) K.B. 997, at pp. 1003-1005. 7. (1912) V.L.R. 274, at p. 279.