Australia’s High Court has set aside two decisions that replaced Michael O’Connell’s murder conviction with a manslaughter verdict, sending his conviction appeal back to the ACT Court of Appeal for reconsideration.
O’Connell was convicted by a jury of murdering Danielle Jordan after she suffered fatal injuries when she fell from the outside of his moving vehicle in April 2022. A majority of the ACT Court of Appeal later found the murder verdict unreasonable, entered an acquittal on that charge and, in a second judgment, substituted a manslaughter verdict.
Six members of the High Court held that the ACT majority did not make full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, which had watched the evidence develop at trial and viewed the scene. The majority had also considered parts of the circumstantial case separately instead of weighing the combined force of all the circumstances when asking whether an inference consistent with innocence remained reasonably open.
The High Court allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal and dismissed O’Connell’s appeal against the substituted manslaughter verdict. It set aside both ACT appeal judgments. It did not finally determine O’Connell’s unreasonable-verdict ground or simply restore the murder conviction; the matter was remitted so the ACT Court of Appeal can decide that ground according to the High Court’s reasons.
The Court also confirmed that the ACT appeal court has statutory power, in an appropriate case, to set aside a conviction and enter a verdict for an alternative offence that was available to the jury. The immediate procedural position is therefore unresolved pending the fresh ACT determination.
The High Court’s judgment in O’Connell v Director of Public Prosecutions; Director of Public Prosecutions v O’Connell [2026] HCA 41 is available here.
