Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
HT v The Queen [2019] HCA 40
In a High Court decision which was handed down close to publication deadline (leaving the door open for this perpetually-late author to do the summary), the High Court has determined that it is not permissible to use ‘closed material’ procedures on sentence, in which an affidavit is provided to the
Purves v R [2019] NSWCCA 227
In this decision the CCA has held that it is essential to the procedure in s 16BA of the Commonwealth Crimes Act that the offender is actually asked, by the Court, that they want the offences taken into account on sentence.
Darestani v R [2019] NSWCCA 248
In this decision the CCA has held that when deciding whether something is an imitation firearm, the use and intention of the accused at the time of possession is relevant to the question of whether a toy falls within the statutory definition for the purpose of the offence.
Jones and Anor v Booth and Anor [2019] NSWSC 1066
In comments made in the context of applications under s 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, but which are relevant to any case where there is expert evidence of mental illness, the Supreme Court has commented on the circumstances in which it will be appropriate to have a psychologist
Neil Harris (a pseudonym) v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 236
This decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal deals with two important issues: when do you have to challenge a sentencing judge on a favourable position they expressed to your opponent? And can adverse use be made of affidavits of assistance if they are not induced? The answers are, respectively: Wh
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
Doran v Director of Public Prosecutions; Brunton v Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] NSWSC 1191
In this decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court, it has been held (or perhaps confirmed) that the relevance to self-defence of intoxication is spent once it is taken into account in determining what the accused subjectively perceived.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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