Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
Marwan v Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] NSWCCA 161
In this decision the CCA has assumed, without deciding, that at least sometimes there is an obligation on the Crown to make further inquiries. But that obligation, if it exists, is reserved for an ‘appropriate case’ (whatever that might mean), and calling upon it poses a number of hurdles for an acc
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.
Carlin v R [2019] NSWCCA 130
When is unauthorised possession of a firearm which is prohibited not unauthorised possession of a prohibited firearm? In this case, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) looked at the fine distinction between two similar offences in the Firearms Act 1996 (‘the Act’) and pointed to an issue with short
Roads and Maritime Services v Farrell; Roads and Maritime Services v Northcott; Roads and Maritime Services v Le Thorn; Roads and Maritime Services v Touba; Roads and Maritime Services v Culpan; Roads and Maritime Services v Hooper [2019] NSWSC 552
In this set of joint matters, a single judge of the Supreme Court has delivered a rebuke to Local Court registrars who simply sign application proceedings without considering jurisdiction, and has examined the eligibility of applicants under the Driver Disqualification Removal Scheme.
Singh v R [2019] NSWCCA 110
In this decision which revisits a very old hangover of the common law, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has determined that there can still be a constructive ‘breaking’ into a property even where the door was opened voluntarily (but without a trick, and with no force used), because the offenders
Sumrein v R [2019] NSWCCA 83
In what looks to be a departure from an earlier line of authority, the CCA has held that possession of a firearm for personal protection might be a factor which mitigates the sentence – at least where the personal protection is unconnected with criminal conduct.
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
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
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Banks [2019] NSWSC 363
The Supreme Court has determined a long-outstanding question about whether a Domestic Violence Evidence in Chief (‘DVEC’) recording might be admissible if the complainant doesn’t attend court. On appeal from the Local Court, a single judge of the Supreme Court has determined that admissibility is de
AB (A Pseudonym) v R (No 3) [2019] NSWCCA 46
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that, in considering whether to make a non-publication order under the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 on the basis that a person might suffer harm, the correct approach is one of the ‘calculus of risk’. Additionally, it found that
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.
Cashel v R [2018] NSWCCA 292
How far do you have to go before you can be found guilty of ‘manufacturing’ a drug? The CCA has determined that, in order to be convicted of manufacturing a prohibited drug a person must have actually produced the drug.
Devitt v Ross [2018] NSWSC 1675
It is not uncommon for defendants to lodge District Court appeals completely out of time – that is, even after the three month period where they can still seek leave to appeal. However, what should happen when a District Court appeal is out of time, and a Supreme Court appeal is also lodged in an at
Robinson v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 231
In this decision (which, admittedly, deals with the tort of wrongful arrest), the Court of Appeal has determined that an arrest is only lawful if it is exercised for the purpose of commencing criminal proceedings. It is not a legal exercise of the power to arrest a person in order to investigate whe
Fang v R [2018] NSWCCA 210
The CCA has unanimously held that, at least on the evidence in this case, a drug-induced psychosis may not, on its own, meet the common law test for the defence of mental illness – although the Court also appears to have left the door open to reconsider the issue in a case where there is appropriate
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.