Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
Vamadevan v The King [2024] NSWCCA 223
In a decision that creates a crisp distinction between offenders committing federal offences as distinct from NSW State-based offences, the CCA has held that, whilst Intensive Correction Orders (‘ICO’s’) are available for federal offenders, s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) do
BAP v R [2024] NSWCCA 206
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has endorsed the proposition that a plea at a ‘super call-over’ may, in appropriate cases, attract a discount which is additional to the discount for the plea of guilty.
McGregor v R [2024] NSWCCA 200
In this case a five-judge bench of the CCA, in a unanimous decision, has considered the correct approach to discounts in federal sentencing cases involving mandatory minimum sentences. The Court also held that aggregate sentences remain available for this category of federal sentences when imposed i
Dorsett v R [2024] NSWCCA 192
In this case, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has attempted to clarify whether or not it is appropriate (or necessary) to sentence by reference to a notional range of objective seriousness – that is, assessing a particular case by comparison to a hypothetical middle of the range of objective se
Shortland v R [2024] NSWCCA 174
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal has held that a gambling disorder – as distinct from merely an undiagnosed gambling problem – may be used in mitigation in appropriate cases. The Court also implied that, where legal practitioners are advising an adjournment of a sentencing hearing, ther
Wild v Meduri [2024] NSWCA 230
This is a rare civil case which has important consequences for criminal lawyers. In the shadow of a debate which has been playing out over whether conversations in affidavits need to be in the first person or not – ideally they should, but it depends on the witness’ memory – the NSW Court of Appeal
Fan v R [2024] NSWCCA 114
The CCA has identified that, at least ordinarily, where a joint criminal enterprise (‘JCE’) is alleged by the Crown against the main offender(s), then even unusual or uncommon forms of liability will flow through to each of the other participants in the JCE.
Nosti v R [2024] NSWCCA 158
Where an offender is to be sentenced for conduct across charges both on indictment and one or more Forms 1, the CCA has held that it will be an error if a sentencing Court is not specific in defining what is, and is not, part of the formal convictions. The presentation by the parties of a global pos
Rabieh v R [2024] NSWCCA 154
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has considered what the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 means when it talks about ‘knowingly taking part’ in the supply of a prohibited drug. In particular, the Court has examined the inscrutable phrase ‘suffers or permits’ in the definition
Davis v R [2024] NSWCCA 120
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has considered common arguments which, though they might have currency in non-sexual offending, are of dubious relevance or validity in the context of child sex matters. They have, however, offered some morsels of comfort for practitioners who fi
RC v Director of Public Prosecutions [2024] NSWCCA 95
With a large number of historical sexual offences now coming before the courts, the prospects of physical and cognitive impairments for defendants has become an increasing feature of trials. In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) examined the so-called ‘common humanity’ test, noting t
Tukuafu v R [2024] NSWCCA 84
Following a helpful review of the authorities (and setting aside one which seems to stand alone), the CCA has set out the bases upon which the facts of Form 1 offences can be taken into account on sentencing – and in the process, considered whether or not, and how, the Form 1 offence(s) can be used
Huynh v R [2024] NSWCCA 61
In the first of two summaries this month dealing with pre-sentence custody, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) observed that pre-sentence custody must be taken into account – but only once. If the Crown contends that some pre-sentence custody is referrable to another offence, it must obtain the re
McMillan v R [2024] NSWCCA 83
In the second part of this month’s duology on pre-sentence custody, the CCA closely examined the individual legislative provisions which require pre-sentence custody to be taken into account, both in sentencing an offender to custody, or in deciding to impose a less serious penalty. The Court also e
Bugmy v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2024] NSWCA 70
This decision overturns a single-judge decision which graced these pages in August last year: Bugmy v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] NSWSC 862. Here, the Court of Appeal determined that an officer who has formed a belief, on reasonable grounds, that a person has failed (or is about to
Ardestani v R [2024] NSWCCA 31
In this decision, the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) has held that the concepts of extended joint criminal enterprise (‘EJCE’) and ‘in company’ are distinct legal concepts, but being ‘in company’ is less rigorous, and there is no prohibition on the prosecution relying on both of them at the same t
Bazzi v R [2024] NSWCCA 35
In this judgment dealing with the problematic (but relatively common) offence under s 115 of the Crimes Act, the Court of Criminal Appeal has discussed the elements of the offence, revisited the problems with sentencing for it, and called for Parliamentary intervention.
Marium v Van Zuylen [2024] NSWSC 258
In this decision a single judge of the Supreme Court has confirmed that a Court Attendance Notice (‘CAN’) can be replaced or amended at any time before a hearing by the issue of a new CAN, without leave being required. This is despite the words of the Criminal Procedure Act (‘the Act’) indicating, o
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