Sure happy to help, but just IMO and MOO. This is a murder indictment. In Qld we have two forms of murder but this will almost certainly be an indictment brought pursuant to s.302(1)(a) of the Code. The main job for the Crown will be to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr Baden Clay intended at the material time to kill or cause GBH to some person and as a result some person (not necessarily the intended victim) did in fact die. The tests for intention adopted in Qld are subjective, and have been developed as common law principles. This means you wont find them in any statute such as the Code, but in the decisions of the Qld Courtof Appeal and sometimes the High Court of Australia. There is a very strong common law presumption that these subjective tests of intention must be applied by a jury of the accused's peers. The jury is to be the arbiter of fact, and the judge of law. The Bligh government attempted to address some efficiency issues in our criminal courts by providing for, inter alia, judge only tries for serious indictable offences. The move was seriously criticised by some memebrs of the judiciary and the legal professions. What was actually needed they said, were more judges and expedited forensic procedures. The result is that although an accused may apply for a juryless trial (as Mr Sica considered), the common law presumption that subjective tests of intention in homicide matters requires lay determination prevails. In the unlikely event that a murder trial ever goes without a juy, there will be interlocutary proceedings to establish the validity of the statutory reforms. Challeneges on the basis of constitutional breaches and of international law obligations have also been flagged. Or so I hear. Hope that is of some assistance. It's always tempting to assume that where there is a statutory provision that it is a simple statement of 'the law'. With the criminal law, it rarely is. But as I say JMO.
