Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
Casella v R [2019] NSWCCA 201
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has thrown more fuel on the fire in the competing decisions around Intensive Correction Orders (‘ICOs’). First, by finding that ICOs of 6 months or less are fine. And secondly, by challenging whether a court is obliged to positively determine tha
R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has revisited the Intensive Correction Order (‘ICO’) regime. The decision revisits the priority that community safety and rehabilitation should take in the sentencing process, and determines that those aspects of the case are not to be given prim
R v Irwin [2019] NSWCCA 133
In this decision the CCA has reminded courts and practitioners that application of the Bugmy principles is not discretionary – although their impact might of course vary in a particular case.
Balach v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] NSWSC 377
In a pair of judgments with relevance to practitioners who give advice in minor matters, or who regularly see District Court appeals, a single judge of the Supreme Court has held that where a written plea of guilty is sent in by a defendant, the Local Court is still obliged to consider whether a s10
Mihelic v R [2019] NSWCCA 2
The CCA has considered circumstances in which it might be an error for a sentencing judge to fail to take sworn evidence of remorse into account – and in the process, seems to have pushed at an open door by saying that a failure by the Crown to cross examine might be used against them.
Dean v R [2019] NSWCCA 27
What happens when everybody agrees that an offence has occurred, but they don’t agree about the specific elements (as distinct from the surrounding, inessential, facts)? If your answer is ‘a disputed facts hearing’, then the CCA has determined that you are wrong; following this decision it appears t
Lee v R [2019] NSWCCA 15
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has found that, unlike certain drug supply offences, profit is not an inherent element of producing identification documents, and in doing so reminded us of how to establish when something is, or is not inherent in an offence.
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
In this, the first appellate decision considering the new sentencing regime which commenced on 24 September 2018, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has made comments showing how significant the changes to Intensive Correction Order (‘ICO’) really are.
Reddy v R [2018] NSWCCA 212
In this case the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has confirmed that it is not a precondition of giving a defendant credit for time in residential rehabilitation that they were compelled to be there. The real question is whether they did in fact subject themselves to the restrictions of the course.
Alesbhi v R; Esbhi v R [2018] NSWCCA 30
The CCA has held that for an offence to be aggravated by the presence of a child requires the court to be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the child was physically present and aware of the offence. The extent of aggravation, if any, requires an assessment of the likelihood of the effect the
Campbell v R [2018] NSWCCA 17
Have you ever wondered whether, when a judicial officer makes a mistake while handing down an ex tempore judgment, you should interrupt them to tell them? The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has provided the answer: at least where the misstatement is about the maximum penalty, you should interrupt,
R v Hall [2017] NSWCCA 313
In this decision the CCA has re-endorsed a rule of thumb to the effect that, even with a finding of special circumstances, non-parole periods should not usually be set as low as 20% of the overall sentence.
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
This full-bench decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’), which follows a recent line of cases previously reported in these pages, finally overturns the so-called ‘principle’ or ‘rule’ which meant that involvement in trafficking of drugs to a substantial degree must lead to fulltime custody
PG v R [2017] NSWCCA 179
In this decision, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that different facts between different offenders call for different sentences – even if that result might look illogical or frustrate attempts for equal justice. It also, by a majority, held that when an aggregate sentence is impose