[2016] HCATrans 268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Sydney No S250 of 2016
B e t w e e n -
MAURICE VAN RYN
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
KIEFEL J
BELL J
GAGELER J
NETTLE J
GORDON J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2016, AT 10.03 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
KIEFEL J: The parties in this proceeding filed a consent on 4 November 2016. The Court makes the following orders by consent:
1.Appeal allowed.
2.Set aside the orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales made on 10 February 2016.
3.Remit the Crown appeal against sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeal for determination.
AT 10.03 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
- AGLC
- Van Ryn v The Queen [2016] HCATrans 268
- Case
- [2016] HCATrans 268
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to direct the jury on the defence of provocation. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether there was sufficient evidence of provocation to warrant such a direction, and if not, whether the absence of such a direction had led to a miscarriage of justice.
The High Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Their Honours held that the evidence presented at trial did not establish a sufficient evidentiary basis for a defence of provocation. The legal principles applied focused on the threshold requirement for a provocation defence, which necessitates evidence that the act of the accused was a response to a sudden or temporary loss of self-control caused by something done or said by the deceased. The Court found that the conduct of the deceased, as described in the evidence, did not meet this threshold, and therefore, the trial judge was not obliged to leave the defence of provocation to the jury.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.