Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
Barber v R [2025] NSWCCA 179
In this judgment the CCA has determined that, where an accused accrues an onus of proof to establish that the drugs in their possession was not for the purpose of supply, they must establish (on the balance of probabilities) that the whole of that portion in their possession was for a purpose other
R v Sabbah [2025] NSWCCA 203
In this case the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) examined the ‘relatively new’ offence in s 37(1A) of the Crimes Act of intentionally choking, and set out a range of factors which are relevant to assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence.
Comer v R [2025] NSWCCA 164
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal has considered what it means for an offence to be a ‘related offence’ under for the purposes of summary offences being sentenced together with indictable offences.
Towers v R [2025] NSWCCA 142
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has drawn attention to the importance of keeping the objective and subjective factors of sentencing separate – and more particularly the importance of not allowing the existence of a guideline judgment to detract from the obligation to make disti
Wei v R [2025] NSWCCA 150
Where an offender is being sentence for a Commonwealth offence, and they have cooperated with authorities, this decision has drawn attention to the importance of a need for separate conclusions about what discount (if any) should be allowed by reason of the assistance.
Seo v R [2025] NSWCCA 131
In this decision, the Court of Criminal Appeal has held that the process of providing a jury the transcript in a trial must be attended with a degree of formality, including involving the Court itself in the process.
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Ingram [2025] NSWCCA 103
In this decision the CCA has said that a person procured by the accused need not be ‘innocent’ before the principal can be found guilty of procuring them to commit the offence. The Court also examined the obligations of the Crown to provide particulars more generally for indictments.
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.
Delaney v R [2025] NSWCCA 76
The Court of Criminal Appeal has held that for the purposes of the definition of ‘mental health impairment’, the mere presence or absence of drug use at around the time is not decisive. The real question is whether any mental health impairment is caused solely by whatever drugs are present in the ac
NK v R [2025] NSWCCA 73
In this decision the CCA has observed that, although general deterrence and an offender’s deprived upbringing may pull in opposite directions in sentencing, it is not correct to say that an increased need for general deterrence renders an offender’s reduced moral culpability irrelevant.
Rokovada v R [2025] NSWCCA 64
In this important decision, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that a mere offer to plead guilty at committal may not secure a 25% discount if accepted later by the Crown, where the plea could have been entered to existing charges but wasn't formally made in court.
MacBlane v R [2025] NSWCCA 52
In this decision, one judge has drawn together 15 years worth of reasons why it is now rarely appropriate to cite the guideline judgment for sentencing in break, enter, and steal matters – and pointed out that practitioners who uncritically do so will likely lead the court into error.
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
RG v R [2025] NSWCCA 36
Where a sex offender has themselves been abused as a child, that earlier abuse against them may be used in mitigation if the applicant establishes on the balance of probabilities that the abuse occurred, that it was a ‘contributing factor’ in their offending, and it can be shown that there are relev
Sampson v R [2025] NSWCCA 25
In this judgment the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that, unfortunate as it may be, the mandatory sentencing discount scheme requires judges to impose post-discount sentences which cannot be rounded to even months. It would appear many head sentences, at least, are set to become expressed
Dimitriou v R [2025] NSWCCA 18
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that in a prosecution for the offence of Fraud, it is not necessary for the Crown to prove that the accused intended the financial advantage or financial disadvantage or was reckless as to that outcome. The element of deception in this context already re
R v Skapik [2025] NSWCCA 19
In this decision the CCA has held that the Commonwealth summary mental health diversion provisions are not limited to acute and serious mental health conditions such as might see a person be involuntarily detained. The concept of ‘mental illness’ in this context is broader and provides a measure of
Salameh v R [2024] NSWCCA 239
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) sat a full bench in this case in order to set the record straight on the mental element in drug supply matters. They held that the prosecution is not required to prove that the accused knew the identity of the actual drug. All that is required is that the prosecu
BAP v R [2024] NSWCCA 206
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has endorsed the proposition that a plea at a ‘super call-over’ may, in appropriate cases, attract a discount which is additional to the discount for the plea of guilty.
Vamadevan v The King [2024] NSWCCA 223
In a decision that creates a crisp distinction between offenders committing federal offences as distinct from NSW State-based offences, the CCA has held that, whilst Intensive Correction Orders (‘ICO’s’) are available for federal offenders, s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) do