R v Willmot (No 2)  2 Qd. R 413 (cited in: (R v Zaburoni  QCA…
R v Willmot (No 2)  2 Qd. R 413
Sztal v Minister for Immigration ...  HCA 34
Smith, Maltimore v R  NSWCCA 93; 309 FLR 258
Sztal v Minister for Immigration ...  FCAFC 69; 243 FCR 556
Zaburoni v the Queen  HCA 12; 256 CLR 482
The Queen v Roux  ACTSC 307
R v Stevens  QCA 286;  1 Qd R 70
The State of Western Australia -v- Schmidt (No 4)  WASC 192
R v Zaburoni  QCA 77; 239 A Crim R 505
Confidential and Commissioner of Taxation  AATA 178; ATC 1-044; 88 ATR 222
R v Handley  QCA 361
Booth v Frippery Pty Ltd & Osr  QPEC 99
R v Clark  QCA 168
R v Reid  QCA 202;  1 Qd R 64
Meaning of "Intent"
"Intent" as an element of murder
Judgement of Campbell J
"the facts spoke for themselves, and the only issue was intent"
The directions given by the primary judge to the jury, in regards to the meaning of the word "intent" were confusing and contradictory.
the word intent was described as referring to a desire to have a certain outcome - HH rejected that desire would be a requisite to intent
The quote from "Archbold" , as referred to in Reg. v. Moloney  is misleading
Judgement of Connolly J, Moynihan J agreeing
"the problem arising in this case is the assumption that s302 of the Criminal Code is simply a restatement of Common Law"
"where the construction of the Code is involved, the point of departure must the Code itself"
HH quoted "its language should be construed according to its natural meaning and without any presumption that it was intended to do no more than restate the existing law. It is not the proper course to begin by finding how the law stood before the Code..."
A notion of desire is not involved, a person may do something fully intending to do it, without any desire to do it.
the Code itself speaks, and it is wrong to gloss it
it is "undesirable to set about explaining an ordinary and well understood word"