Category: Criminal Law
-
In Armitage v Parole Board Queensland (2023) 17 QR 297, the Queensland Court of Appeal reviewed the Parole Board’s decision to issue a ‘no cooperation declaration’ for a ‘no body-no parole prisoner’, where the victim’s skeletal remains were likely destroyed by fire or animal predation. One of the key issues was the meaning of “remains”.
-
In the matter of R v Lovell; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2015] QCA 136, the Court of Appeal considered whether a disfigurement subsequently medically repaired is capable of amounting to ‘serious disfigurement’ under the definition of grievous bodily harm.
-
In Carter v Attorney-General (No 2) [2014] 1 Qd R 111, the appellant, a heroin user, aided the deaths of two persons who expressed a wish to die. The Court of Appeal considered whether s 311 (aiding suicide) was a complete code, and whether killing someone with intention to kill even though that person expressed…
-
In Cobb v Queensland Police Service (2023) 3 QDCR 123, the Court held that a mobile phone constitutes a “computer” for the purposes of s 408E of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) — unauthorised access to a password-protected mobile phone amounted to misuse of a “restricted computer”.
-
In R v Morris [2010] QCA 315, the Court of Appeal considered whether the applicant’s sentence for unlawful stalking for posting defamatory notices—implicating the complainant as a murderer, was excessive.
-
In R v Reid [2007] 1 Qd R 64, the appellant appealed their conviction of unlawfully transmitting a serious disease (HIV) with intent to do so, contrary to s 317(b) of the Criminal Code (Qld). The appeal focused on the meaning of intent.
-
In this special case Cherry v Queensland [2025] HCA 141, the High Court was questioned on the constitutional validity of Queensland’s “no body-no parole” law. The plaintiff relied on the Kable principle, arguing that ss 175L and 175E of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) invalid. The High Court determined s 175L of the Corrective…
-
In R v Willmot (No 2) [1985] 2 Qd R 41, the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether the jury were misdirected on the element of intent in a murder conviction under s 302(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).
-
In R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30, the High Court determined that evidence for a sane automatism defence was improperly excluded at trial, allowing Falconer’s appeal for the wilful murder conviction of her husband.
-
In Stuart v The Queen (1974) 134 CLR 426, the High Court considered constructive murder (also known as felony murder), clarifying that conviction requires proof of an unlawful act endangering life, not intent to kill, leading to the refusal of Stuart’s application.
