Van Ryn v The Queen

Case [2016] HCATrans 268


[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

Details
AGLC
Van Ryn v The Queen [2016] HCATrans 268
Case
[2016] HCATrans 268
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales in the matter of *Van Ryn v The Queen*. The appellant, Van Ryn, was convicted of murder and appealed against that conviction.

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.