Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
R v Narouz [2024] NSWCCA 14
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has determined that the offence of driving with illicit drug in oral fluid is an offence of absolute liability, so that the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is not available.
Robertson v R [2024] NSWCCA 22
Here the CCA has reiterated that where an offender commits an offence to pay off a drug debt or to fund their own habit, then the offence will typically not be for ‘financial reward’ in the way that is normally understood in the context of sentencing – but this amounts to the absence of an aggravati
DG v R (No 1) [2023] NSWCCA 320
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has put to bed the question of whether a sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to enable consideration of an Intensive Correction Order (‘ICO’): it is not a permissible exercise of a sentencing judge’s discretion.
Brighton v RSPCA (NSW) [2023] NSWSC 1653
A Supreme Court judge, sitting alone, himself described this case as ‘arguably interesting’, involving, as it did, an unprovoked attack on a camel named Alice, the ‘barbaric’ killing of a dog by the owner, summary conviction, a successful appeal, remittal, and the eventual imposition of an ‘extraor
Mattiussi v R [2023] NSWCCA 289
The Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has criticised the over-complicated way that time in custody is often expressed in submissions, and suggested a simpler way to express the same information.
R v DK [2023] NSWCCA 281
In this decision, the CCA has looked at practitioners’ obligations when they receive a subpoena in relation to a former client, and confirmed that the District Court has no power to order costs to the recipient of a subpoena from the Crown.
Fear v R [2023] NSWCCA 238
This decision serves as an important reminder that there is a difference in the definition – and therefore the offence – that applies for supply of cannabis leaf, versus supply of cannabis plants.
Bott v R [2023] NSWCCA 255
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that, just because there is no hierarchy of the harm caused by drugs does not mean that there is no value in comparing drugs against one another in terms of their expected value, provided there is evidence to support that proposition.
Kljaic v R [2023] NSWCCA 225
In this first of a duo of (apparently unrelated) cases on the topic of when and how sentences can be backdated, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has concluded that in appropriate circumstances an available means of recognising difficult conditions in custody is to backdate a sentence to a date b
Marai v R [2023] NSWCCA 224
This case also grapples with the question of back-dating sentences of imprisonment. Here, the CCA has held that in appropriate circumstances it may be appropriate to give full credit for time spent in immigration detention, even if the offender was technically on bail at the time.
Quinn v R [2023] NSWCCA 229
In this decision the CCA has confirmed the elements that the prosecution must prove when alleging that an accused was an accessory after the fact, and faintly, implicitly, bemoaned the fact that NSW remains the only Australian jurisdiction not to codify this area of the law.
Chan v R [2023] NSWCCA 206
For anybody worried that it wasn’t already sufficiently complicated to sentence federal offenders, fear not, because this decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) provides that when sentencing a federal offender, a court applying the three-step test in deciding whether to impose an Intensive
Rodden v R [2023] NSWCCA 202
In this decision the CCA has determined that a person on a grant of Legal Aid can be granted a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (‘the Act’).
Bugmy v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] NSWSC 862
This decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court, holds that, the only precondition to a police officer arresting a person for breach of bail is a formation of the relevant belief as to a breach of bail – the officer is not obliged to consider alternatives like a warning before determining to ar
Elwood v Director of Public Prosecutions [2023] NSWSC 772
This decision came to public attention because of the remarks of the Magistrate, who had disparaged judgments – and judges – of the Supreme Court. But the reasons are likely to be important in committal matters where the case conference process is taking a long time – and perhaps in any matter which
Brzozowski v R [2023] NSWCCA 129
The CCA has drawn out the fine distinctions between regret about consequences, and remorse as to the original offending which led to those consequences – and held that it is only the latter which can result in a finding leading to mitigation of a sentence for the purpose of s 21A(3)(i).
R v Sharrouf [2023] NSWCCA 137
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has determined that the use of a s 10A (i.e. a conviction with no other penalty) should be rare in domestic violence offences where the offence is considered to be objectively serious.
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
Wass v Director of Public Prosecution (NSW); Wass v Constable Wilcock [2023] NSWCA 71
In this decision involving a plaintiff who wanted to regain his firearms licence, the Court of Appeal has held that it is not possible to apply to ‘revoke’ an expired Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (‘ADVO’).
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.