Graham v The Queen [2016] HCA 27: Jury Directions

In the case of Graham v The Queen [2016] HCA 27, the High Court has dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland pertaining to the appellant’s convictions of attempted murder and unlawful wounding with intent to maim. The appellant had sought to overturn his conviction on the basis that the trial judge had erred in his direction to the jury. The majority of the High Court rejected this point.

Background to the Case

The appellant was involved in a confrontation with another man, Jacques Teamo, at a shopping centre on the Gold Coast on 28 April 2012. Both men were members of rival motorcycle gangs and during the course of the confrontation Teamo produced a knife and the appellant produced a gun and fired two shots in response. The first shot hit Teamo while the second hit an innocent bystander. The appellant was subsequently apprehended and charged with attempted murder and unlawful wounding with intent to maim.

Self-Defence

The appellant argued that by producing the knife, Teamo had assaulted him and his subsequent actions were done in self-defence. The defence is available under the Queensland Criminal Code where the person claiming the benefit of self-defence is ‘assaulted.’ A threat by a person to apply force to another can constitute assault. However, the defence is not available where the action constituting the threat of assault was done with the consent of the person threatened.

During his closing address to the jury, the prosecutor suggested that Teamo’s production of the knife could be considered part of a ‘consensual confrontation’ between Teamo and the appellant and was therefore not an assault. The appellant’s Counsel did not address this issue at all.

Direction to the Jury

In directing the jury, the Judge set out a list of ten questions setting out the sequence of matters to be found, and during redirection, gave detailed written directions on self-defence.  The trial judge referred orally to the prosecutor's closing address and his reference to the term "consensual confrontation" but the trial judge described this as a matter of "interpretation, construction and argument". The jury did not seek redirection on this point and found the appellant guilty on both counts.

Appeal

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the prosecutor had misled the jury with the reference to a “consensual confrontation” and the trial judge had erred in not addressing this matter. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have explained that the alleged assault concerned the producing of the knife and that there was no evidence to suggest consent on the part of the appellant. The Court of Appeal rejected this point and ruled that there was no error in the trial judge’s directions.

High Court Appeal

The High Court held, by majority, that there was no misdirection by the trial judge. The relevant legal tests were put before the jury. The High Court ruled that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on what were considered the real issues in the trial and was not required to further elaborate on the issue of consent.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Graham v The Queen [2016] HCA 27