NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Parker v R [2020] NSWCCA 206 Hearing dates: 21 May 2020 Decision date: 21 August 2020 Before: R A Hulme J at [1]; Wright J at [85]; N Adams J at [170] Decision: In respect of conviction: (1) Leave to allow Ground 1(a), (b) and (c) refused pursuant to r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules. (2) Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed. In respect of sentence: (1) The applicant has leave to appeal. (2) The appeal is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – circumstantial case – coincidence evidence – no coincidence reasoning because no reliance on improbability of similarities – similarities proof of involvement in drug syndicate CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – manifest excess – stern but not excessive Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s5(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Rules, r 4 Criminal Code (Cth), ss 11.2(1), 300.2, 305.3(1), 307.1(1), 311.4, 400.4(1), 400.5(1) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), Part 3.6, ss 97(1)(b), 98(1)(b) Cases Cited: Barrett v R [2020] NSWCCA 11 El-Haddad v R (2015) 88 NSWLR 93; [2015] NSWCCA 10 Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590; [1989] HCA 50 Heng v R [2019] NSWCCA 317 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2 Jaafar v R [2017] NSWCCA 223 Keung, Bow, Liu v R [2008] NSWCCA 193; 191 A Crim R 317 Kuo v R; Huang v R; Shih v R [2018] NSWCCA 270 Law v R [2006] NSWCCA 100 Mac v R [2014] NSWCCA 24 Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 R v Kassir [2020] NSWCCA 88 R v Lee [2007] NSWCCA 234 R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238; 205 A Crim R 106 R v Quach [2002] NSWCCA 519; (2002) 137 A Crim R 345 R v Stanbouli [2003] NSWCCA 355; 141 A Crim R 531 The Queen v Falzon (2018) 264 CLR 361; [2018] HCA 29 Tu v R [2011] NSWCCA 31 Wong v the Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4 Zaugg v R [2020] NSWCCA 53 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Anthony Parker (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr T Edwards (Applicant) Mr S Duggan (Crown)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate