Canberra man's murder conviction reinstated by High Court

In short:

Canberra man Michael O'Connell's murder conviction has been reinstated by the High Court, following an appeal that swapped the jury's verdict of murder to manslaughter.

Danielle Jordan died in 2022 after falling from the bonnet of O'Connell's car while trying to stop him from leaving after an argument.

What's next?

The High Court has ordered the case return to the Court of Appeal. 

The High Court has reinstated a Canberra man's murder conviction and ordered the case return to the Court of Appeal.

Michael O'Connell was originally sentenced to 15 years in jail after an ACT Supreme Court jury found him guilty of murdering his partner.

Danielle Jordan died from catastrophic head injuries in April 2022, when she fell from the bonnet of his car, as she tried to stop him from leaving during an argument.

The prosecution's case hinged on the argument that O'Connell was "recklessly indifferent" to the probability of causing Ms Jordan's death.

O'Connell successfully appealed the conviction on various grounds, including that the verdict was unreasonable.

One of his key contentions was the unreliability of a 13-year-old witness, who was a linchpin in the prosecution's case.

The Court of Appeal set aside the murder conviction and, weeks later in an unusual move, imposed a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.

O'Connell was re-sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

The ACT Director of Public Prosecutions launched an appeal, arguing the jury had advantages in witnessing the evidence unfold at trial, including by visiting the crime scene.

High Court restores O'Connell's murder conviction

Today, the High Court unanimously allowed an appeal, restoring O'Connell's murder conviction and thus setting aside the manslaughter verdict.

"The first error of principle is that the majority of the Court of Appeal failed to properly identify and make 'full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury' in seeing and hearing the evidence at the trial, especially the advantage the jury derived from their view of the scene," the judgment said.

"The second error of principle on the part of the majority of the Court of Appeal was the failure to consider the combined effect of the evidence and circumstances relied on by the prosecution to establish its case of reckless indifference."

The High Court has referred the murder case back to the Court of Appeal, to re-hear O'Connell's challenge that the verdict was unreasonable.

The High Court dismissed a separate appeal by O'Connell, who had argued the Court of Appeal did not have the legal power to substitute the charge of murder with manslaughter.