Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
Trevascus v R [2021] NSWCCA 104
In this decision, the CCA held that oral jury directions are always necessary, even if written directions are provided. If a written document is given to the jury, it needs to be read out and explained, and ordinarily the jury should not be asked to read the document on their own outside of court.
VP v R [2021] NSWCCA 11
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that if a defendant remains silent until the end of a trial about the prosecutor’s failure to call witnesses, they risk the appearance that it was a forensic decision – and that may impact on whether the failure will amount to a miscarri
Fisher v R; R v Fisher [2021] NSWCCA 91
In this decision the CCA has reviewed the authorities relating to self-induced intoxication on sentence.
Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
In this decision, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has endorsed a practice of reducing, rather than backdating, sentences of imprisonment when there is pre-sentence custody and an Intensive Correction Order (‘ICO’) is ultimately imposed.
Attorney-General’s Application pursuant to s 108 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW): Re Robert Burton (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWCCA 87
AUTHOR’S NOTE: There is a really serious question here about what the statutory publication restriction means. The publication restriction in s 108(6) is called out twice by Simpson AJA in the decision (at [5]-[6] and again at [86]), but the judgment offers no advice as to what it really means.
Johnston v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2021] NSWSC 333
In this decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court, it has been held when the prosecution wants to elect for a matter to be dealt with on indictment, the key event when talking about time limits is that the communication of the election, either orally to the Local Court, or by filing a notice.
R v SS [2021] NSWCCA 56
In this (pair of) decision(s), the Court of Criminal Appeal has held that the so-called Ellis-discount has to an extent been overtaken by legislation – although case law does establish generally-accepted categories of assistance. Merely pleading guilty and confessing to the offence is unlikely to be
Bentley v R; Davies v R; Thomas v R; Tilley v R [2021] NSWCCA 18
In this unusual case the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has considered the onus of proof in relation to remorse. The overall onus lies upon the offender, on the balance of probabilities, to establish genuine remorse. But where there is a factual issue which might demonstrate an absence of genuine
Lacey (a pseudonym) v Attorney General for New South Wales [2021] NSWCA 27
In this decision the Court of Appeal has held that the Local Court (and so the Children’s Court) has power to impose a conditional permanent stay of proceedings – potentially including, at least in these circumstances, the power to order that the matter must be stayed unless heard by a female magist
Momoa v R [2020] NSWCCA 328
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal has clarified the obligations of a former lawyer where incompetence is alleged against them by subsequent lawyers.
Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCA 318
This decision adds another chapter to each of two ongoing areas of controversy: the exact nature of District Court appeals, and the content of the test when considering an Intensive Correction Order (‘ICO’). Here the Court of Appeal has determined that it is an error, when considering a sentence app
Hamilton v DPP [2020] NSWSC 1745
This decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court deals with the scenario where a defendant agrees that they have committed the offence charged, but disagrees about the particulars of the allegation. It determines that the question of whether the defendant should be committed for sentence (with a
Ilic v R [2020] NSWCCA 300
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) (McCallum JA, Wright J agreeing; Garling J also agreeing, though for slightly different reasons) has held that Commonwealth matters are not capable of being placed on a Form 1 (as distinct from a schedule pursuant to Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s16BA).
Eakin v R [2020] NSWCCA 294
In this decision the CCA has held that where a sentencing judge sets up a parity relationship between offenders, and a co-offender subsequently gets their sentence reduced, then that might give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance – even if you already had a lower sentence – allowing an appeal t
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
Jackson v R [2020] NSWCCA 230
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has pointed out that although advanced age can be relevant in many ways, it does not follow that elderly offenders are necessarily entitled to a lower sentence.
Saffin v R [2020] NSWCCA 246
Despite being a sentence appeal, this decision sheds some light on how the law of consent works in the context of sex offences. After reiterating that a sentencing judge is not obliged to accept the defence version on sentence just because they do not accept the prosecution version, the Court went o
R v Stonestreet [2020] NSWCCA 212
The last several years have seen an increase in the focus on reduced ‘moral culpability’ as a result of mental illness as a mitigating factor on sentence. However, in this appeal, the CCA has reminded us that in some cases there is a flip side: sometimes, mental illness will indicate an increased ne
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.
Curran v R [2020] NSWCCA 171
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has harshly criticised comments made by a prosecutor which suggested the accused had a motive to lie in order to be acquitted, and a comment that he might have a broader tendency than that actually pleaded in the tendency notice.