Where conflicting psychiatric evidence is before a jury on defences of insanity (s 27) and diminished responsibility (s 304A) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), the jury is entitled to prefer prosecution psychiatric evidence and to rely on post-offence conduct demonstrating awareness of wrongfulness. A disconformity between prosecution particulars regarding the degree of intoxication and the evidence at trial does not render a verdict unsafe where the prosecution case does not depend on the specific particular.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.