Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v JS [2025] NSWSC 1172
In this decision the Supreme Court has held that a certificate under s 177 of the Evidence Act is not required to comply with all the usual requirements for expert evidence. So long as it complies with the terms of s 177, and so long as there is no written objection, the certificate – and therefore
Wright v R [2025] NSWCCA 108
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that a tendency notice served only a few days before trial can still amount to ‘reasonable notice’ under the Evidence Act, provided it causes no actual prejudice to the accused, and despite requirements for it to be served typically many months earlier.
R v Walker [2025] NSWCCA 62
In this decision about a jury direction, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has commented on the emerging view that in-person evidence has advantages over video evidence. The obiter comments are likely to be worthwhile reading for any practitioner making or opposing an application that a witness g
Wild v Meduri [2024] NSWCA 230
This is a rare civil case which has important consequences for criminal lawyers. In the shadow of a debate which has been playing out over whether conversations in affidavits need to be in the first person or not – ideally they should, but it depends on the witness’ memory – the NSW Court of Appeal
Gardiner v R [2023] NSWCCA 89
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has determined that although judges in judge-alone trials are entitled to take into account the demeanour of witnesses outside the witness box (for example in the dock, or in the well of the Court), the judge should immediately bring to the atten
Barney v R [2023] NSWCCA 85
In the course of considering this appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal has discussed the concepts of ‘credibility’ and ‘reliability’ in a way that is likely to be useful for practitioners appearing in hearings and appeals at all levels.
Kanbut v R [2022] NSWCCA 259
In this decision the CCA has observed that a tendency notice which simply asserts all the allegations in the prosecution case is unlikely to meet the objectives of the tendency rule, and examined the injustice which can arise when the jury directions from such a faulty tendency notice do not correct
R v Russell [2022] NSWCCA 294
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has examined whether a witness who is unresponsive or silent will give rise to exceptions in the Evidence Act which would otherwise allow the tender of an earlier statement, either based on the credibility rule, or based on the ‘maker unavailable
Ahmed v R [2021] NSWCCA 280
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal has held that in cases where the accused bears an onus in relation to a defence, there is a particular need for the judicial officer to direct themselves that the failure of the accused to give of sworn evidence cannot be used as a factor on the question
R v Riley [2020] NSWCCA 283
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has considered a case where illegally-obtained evidence was rejected by a trial judge. In making the determination, they held that the probative value of the evidence must be taken at its highest, excluding (in all but the most extreme circumstan
SB v R [2020] NSWCCA 207
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that evidence of complaint is not ‘independent’ of the complainant. To the extent that the Criminal Trials Bench Book had a recommended direction to that effect, it was wrong.
Higgins v R [2020] NSWCCA 149
This decision reinforces previous authority in relation to the co-conspirators rule, and particularly the (in)admissibility of certain kinds of admissions made. It also draws specific attention to the test for the taking of ‘judicial notice’ of things, and emphasises the importance of the court givi
Jurd v R [2020] NSWCCA 91
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has determined where spouses and other family members have a right to object to giving evidence for the prosecution, the procedure needs to be followed carefully – especially since (contrary to some older authority) it has the capacity to affect the rights of the
Jackson v R [2020] NSWCCA 5
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has considered whether, in light of recent High Court authority, there is a different standard of proof to be applied to uncharged acts when there is only one complainant in sex matters, versus when there is more than one. This was not thought to be the right veh
Vasilevski v R [2019] NSWCCA 277
What is the truth, anyway? In a debate befitting the times of ‘alternative facts’, the CCA has considered whether offences of persuading someone to withhold ‘true evidence’ refer to evidence that the witness believes to be true, or evidence which is objectively true. Although strictly unnecessary to
Hogg v R [2019] NSWCCA 323
In this decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’), the Court has examined the use of the ‘special caution’ and how it may (or may not) qualify the right to silence.
AB (a pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA 62
In a decision with consequences for retrials where the complainant’s evidence was recorded (and which might be relevant in other matters where some of the evidence is pre-recorded), the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has determined that it will seldom, if ever, be appropriate for the recording to
Bandao v R; Bruce v R [2018] NSWCCA 181
In an era where everybody has a mobile recording device immediately to hand, what happens if material comes to light which might be relevant to a defence, but might also have been recorded illegally? In this decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, the court has set out a step-by-step process which
Odisho v R [2018] NSWCCA 19
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has examined applications for leave to cross examine one’s own witnesses under s38. The core principle seems to be that grants of leave will be strictly interpreted, and if there is any possibility that cross examination will stray into territory which is only ab
KN v R [2017] NSWCCA 249
The CCA has determined that it is within a trial judge’s discretion to order that audio visual link (‘AVL’) evidence can be given from the complainant’s home, using their own computer and software.