NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hayne v R [2022] NSWCCA 11 Hearing dates: 29 November 2021 Date of orders: 14 February 2022 Decision date: 14 February 2022 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1] Harrison J at [2] Wilson J at [110] Decision: (1) Grant leave to the appellant to appeal on grounds 1 and 3. (2) Allow the appeal on those grounds. (3) Quash the appellant's convictions and order a new trial. (4) Grant leave to appeal on ground 2 but dismiss that ground. (5) Dismiss ground 4. (6) List the proceedings for directions in the District Court at 9.30am on 18 February 2022. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – appeal against conviction – sexual intercourse without consent – whether erroneous direction of trial judge as to the legal test in s 61HA(3)(c) of the Crimes Act resulted in a miscarriage of justice – whether admission of evidence in new trial proceedings under s 306I of the Criminal Procedure Act was unfairly prejudicial – adducing of evidence excluded at pre-trial under s 130A of the Criminal Procedure Act – admissibility of evidence relating to sexual experience under s 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act – whether verdict of the jury was unreasonable Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 ss 61HA, 61I, 61J, 61Q Criminal Appeal Act 1912 ss 5F, 6 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 ss 130A, 293, 306I, 306J Evidence Act 1995 ss 41, 137, 142 Cases Cited: Bazouni v R [2021] NSWCCA 256 Decision Restricted [2021] NSWCCA 201 GEH v R (2012) 228 A Crim R 32; [2012] NSWCCA 150 Kalbasi v Western Australia (2018) 264 CLR 62; [2018] HCA 7 Krakouer v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 202; [1998] HCA 43 Lazarus v R [2016] NSWCCA 52 Liberato v R (1985) 159 CLR 507; [1985] HCA 66 O'Sullivan v R (2012) 233 A Crim R 449; [2012] NSWCCA 45 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37 Priday v R [2019] NSWCCA 272 R v Dirani (No 8) [2018] NSWSC 1000 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531; [1979] HCA 9 WX v R (2020) 102 NSWLR 467; [2020] NSWCCA 142 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jarryd Hayne (Appellant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Game SC and C O'Neill (Appellant) B Hatfield and J Sfinas (Respondent)
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