NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: DS v R [2023] NSWCCA 151 Hearing dates: 24 February 2023 Date of orders: 23 June 2023 Decision date: 23 June 2023 Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [1] Yehia J at [2] Weinstein J at [132] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal against conviction granted (2) Appeal dismissed Catchwords: CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Whether the "depraved" nature of some of the counts was so prejudicial as to warrant separate trials — Whether the failure to discharge the jury after the bestiality count was no billed occasioned a miscarriage of justice — Whether the cumulative effect of the way in which the evidence supporting the bestiality count was elicited prevented the jury from impartially considering the evidence on each count separately — Where jury verdicts demonstrated a considered approach to the evidence — No miscarriage of justice Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1), 5(1)(b), 6(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 33B(1)(a), 59(1), 61I, 61J(1), 344A(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 21(2), 21(2)(a), 29, s 29(1), 29(3) Cases Cited: AK v R [2022] NSWCCA 175 Allen v R [2020] NSWCCA 173 BQ v R [2023] NSWCCA 34 Castagna v R [2012] NSWCCA 181 Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22 De Jesus v The Queen [1986] HCA 65; (1986) 61 ALJR 1 DR v R [2019] NSWCCA 320 Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 160 Hofer v The Queen [2021] HCA 36; (2021) 95 ALJR 937 Khazaal v R [2011] NSWCCA 129 Maric v R (1978) 20 ALR 513; (1978) 52 ALJR 631 Nudd v R [2006] HCA 9; (2006) 80 ALJR 614 Osman v R [2006] NSWCCA 196 R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131 R v Toohey (No 1) [2017] NSWSC 846 R v Verma (1987) 30 A Crim R 441 Roach v R [2019] NSWCCA 160 Sunders v R [2022] NSWCCA 273 Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528; [1984] HCA 5 Tomlinson v R (2022) 107 NSWLR 239; [2022] NSWCCA 16 Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81 White v R [2022] NSWCCA 241 Zhou v R [2021] NSWCCA 278 Category: Principal judgment Parties: DS (Applicant) Rex (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Moutasallem (Applicant) A Bonnor (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