NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: R v Drollett [2005] NSWCCA 356
HEARING DATE(S): 26 May 2005, 17 June 2005
JUDGMENT DATE: 4 November 2005
JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Simpson J at 2; Rothman J at 69
DECISION: (i) appeal allowed; (ii) conviction quashed; (iii) new trial ordered.
CATCHWORDS: appeal against conviction - malicious wounding in company - whether evidence concerning film footage admissible - evidence on voir dire subsequently admitted - witness saw appellant from front view after incident ended but was unable to identify him from front view footage - witness did not see appellant from rear view but purported to identify him from that footage - whether evidence relevant - evidence of fact - evidence of opinion - witness identified clothing worn by appellant minutes before attack - witness identification by process of deduction and reference to his clothing - interpretation of video evidence - ad hoc expert
Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s6 LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995, Part 3.3, s56, s76, s78, s79, s137
Butera v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) [1987] HCA 58; 164 CLR 180 Eastman v The Queen (1997) 76 FCR 9 R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337 R v Cassar; R v Sleiman [1999] NSWSC 436 CASES CITED: R v Leung [1999] NSWCCA 287; 47 NSWLR 405 R v Marsh [2005] NSWCCA 331, unreported, 20 September 2005 R v Menzies [1982] 1 NZLR 40 R v Smith (Mundarra) [1999] NSWCCA 317; 47 NSWLR 419 Smith v The Queen [2001] HCA 50; 206 CLR 650
Crown - Respondent PARTIES: Adam Drollett - Appellant
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