Smyth v R [1957] HCA 24; (1957) 98 CLR 163 (17 April 1957)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SMYTH v. THE QUEEN [1957] HCA 24; (1957) 98 CLR 163

Criminal Law

High Court of Australia
Dixon C.J.(1), McTiernan(1), Fullagar(1), Kitto(1) and Taylor(1) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Law - Specific intention - Evidence - Conduct - Presumption.

HEARING

Sydney, 1957, April 4, 17. 17:4:1957
APPLICATION for special leave to appeal to the High Court.

DECISION

April 20.
THE COURT delivered the following written judgment: -
Having considered the evidence in this case we think that a jury properly inference that when the appellant struck the deceased several times with the wrench he intended to cause him what would amount to grievous bodily harm. (at p166)

2. For that reason we think that we ought not to grant special leave to appeal notwithstanding that we think that the direction complained of is not in accordance with law and ought not to have been given. In this Court disapproval has been expressed on more than one occasion of the use, where a specific intent must be found, of the supposed presumption, conclusive or otherwise, that a man intends the natural, or natural and probable, consequences of his acts : see Stapleton v. The Queen [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 358, at p 365 ; Baily v. Baily [1952] HCA 41; (1952) 86 CLR 424, at p 427 ; Deery v. Deery [1954] HCA 4; (1954) 90 CLR 211, at pp219-223 ; Gow v. White (1908) 5 CLR, at p 876 , per O'Connor J. The ruling of Lord Goddard C.J. in Reg. v. Ward (1956) 2 WLR 423, at p 428 , is difficult to reconcile with his Lordship's statement in R. v. Steane (1947) KB 997, at pp 1003-1005 , which we think is to be preferred and is certainly sound. The fact is that, as Cussen J. remarked in Cox v. Smail (1912) VLR 274, at p 279 , the statement that a person must be held to intend the natural consequences of his act merely conceals the true position. (at p167)

3. Application for special leave to appeal refused. (at p167)

ORDER

Application refused.