R v George

[2013] QCA 267

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Homicide
3. › Murder
4. › Felony murder
5. › Act done in prosecution of unlawful purpose
6. › Whether intoxication relevant to unlawful purpose element
7. › Where unlawful purpose particularised as offence including intent element
8. › Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), ss 28(3), 302(1)(b), 419(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Defences
3. › Intoxication
4. › Relevance to intention to cause specific result
5. › Whether s 28(3) Criminal Code applies to felony murder under s 302(1)(b)
6. › Where unlawful purpose is burglary requiring intent to commit indictable offence
7. › Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), ss 28(3), 302(1)(b), 419(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Application of proviso
5. › Whether no substantial miscarriage of justice where trial judge failed to direct on intoxication
6. › Independent review of evidence by appellate court
7. › Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1A)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence
4. › Circumstantial case
5. › DNA evidence
6. › Whether rational hypothesis consistent with innocence excluded
7. › Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1)

Quick Take

Where the unlawful purpose for felony murder under s 302(1)(b) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) is particularised as an offence with an intention element (such as burglary under s 419(1)), the trial judge must direct the jury on the relevance of intoxication under s 28(3). The reference to 'unlawful purpose' rather than 'offence' in s 302(1)(b) does not exclude s 28(3) in all cases, but s 28(3) has no application where the particularised unlawful purpose is an offence without an intention element (such as rape under s 349).