NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: Regina (Cth) v Macarthur [2005] NSWCCA 65
HEARING DATE(S): 21 February 2005
JUDGMENT DATE: 3 March 2005
JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; James J at 77; Barr J at 78
DECISION: Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - KNOWINGLY CONCERNED IN NON-PAYMENT OF PENALTY SURCHARGE APPLICABLE WHERE "MARKED FUEL" USED FOR UNAUTHORIZED PURPOSE - EXPERT EVIDENCE REJECTED ON GROUNDS OF IRRELEVANCE AND FOCUS ON CREDIBILITY OF OTHER WITNESS - SPECULATIVE OPINION - RULING TO REJECT NOT ERRONEOUS - CROWN WITNESSES CAUTIONED AND GIVEN CERTIFICATES UNDER s128 EVIDENCE ACT - WITNESSES NOT THEREBY INDEMNIFIED AGAINST PROSECUTION - DIRECTION TO JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE "PROTECTED" CORRECTLY REFUSED - NOR WAS DIRECTION THAT TESTIMONY "TAINTED" APPROPRIATE - CHALLENGES TO SUMMING UP NOT MADE OUT - AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT JURY FINDING OF KNOWLEDGE ADVERSE TO APPELLANT
Evidence Act 1995 Fuel Prices (Penalties Surcharges) Administration Act 1997 LEGISLATION CITED: Fuel Misuse (Penalty Surcharge) Act Fuel Sale (Penalty Surcharge) Act 1999 Fuel Blending (Penalty Surcharge) Act
Azzopardi v The Queen 2001 205 CLR 50 Dyers v The Queen 2002 210 CLR 285 CASES CITED: Killick v The Queen 1981 147 CLR 565 The Queen v Chin 1985 157 CLR 671
PARTIES: Regina (Commonwealth) v Ross William Macarthur
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2003/3144
P. E. McDonald (Cr/Resp) COUNSEL: J. Crowther, solicitor (Applicant)
Commonwealth DPP SOLICITORS: Crowthers Lawyers (Applicant)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
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