Where reckless murder is left to the jury alongside unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter, the trial judge must: (1) consistently use 'really serious injury' for murder to distinguish it from 'serious injury' for manslaughter; (2) warn the jury not to substitute an objective reasonable person test for the subjective requirement of recklessness; and (3) relate the evidence to the accused's state of mind including age, background, emotional state and sobriety. Where consciousness of guilt is to be inferred from demeanour during a police interview, the jury must receive a strong warning about the dangers of such an inference, including the possibility of drug influence, tiredness, and the risk of reversing the onus of proof. The mixed statements rule applies to statements made by an accused to a psychiatrist: where the Crown elicits inculpatory statements, the accused is entitled to have qualifying statements made at the same time placed before the jury. The question whether statements to a psychiatrist about the accused's state of mind constitute original evidence admissible without confirmation was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 57 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 57 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.