Macartney v The Queen

(2006) 31 WAR 416; [2006] WASCA 29

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Murder
3. › Felony murder
4. › Section 279(2) Criminal Code (WA)
5. › Act done in prosecution of unlawful purpose
6. › Whether act causing death must be identified where multiple possible acts
7. › Whether sufficient that every reasonable possibility as to act causing death was likely to endanger human life
1. Criminal Law
2. › Murder
3. › Felony murder
4. › Section 279(2) Criminal Code (WA)
5. › Meaning of 'likely to endanger human life'
6. › Whether phrase requires likelihood of death or likelihood of danger to life
7. › Distinction between 'likely to endanger human life' and 'likely to cause death'
1. Criminal Law
2. › Defences
3. › Accident
4. › Section 23 Criminal Code (WA)
5. › Whether defence of accident available where act causing death unidentified
6. › Whether evidence must raise the issue before defence falls for consideration
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction
4. › Trial by judge alone
5. › Circumstantial evidence
6. › Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory
7. › DNA evidence
8. › Whether fresh evidence should be received

Quick Take

A conviction for murder under s 279(2) of the Criminal Code (WA) can be sustained even where the trial judge cannot identify the specific act which caused death, provided there is no reasonable possibility that the act causing death was one not likely to endanger human life. The phrase 'likely to endanger human life' in s 279(2) relates the likelihood to the putting of life in danger, not to the causing of death — an act may be likely to be dangerous to life without being likely to cause death. The test is objective.