NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: Healey v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 235
HEARING DATE(S): 27 February 2006; 1 May 2006
JUDGMENT DATE: 4 August 2006
JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Rothman J at 2; Smart AJ at 3
DECISION: See para 151
CATCHWORDS: Summing Up without summarising evidence still requires judge to put the accused's case. Error in extending Longman direction to possible forensic disadvantage suffered by Crown. Failure to warn jury about the fragility of youthful recollection. Jury not told that before they could use uncharged sexual misconduct they must be satisfied it had occurred. Defects in Summing Up and risk of miscarriage prevented application of Rule 4. Combination of defects, case being one of word against word and the delay precluded application of proviso.
LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 MFA v The Queen 2002 213 CLR 606 Qualtieri v R [2006] NSWCCA 95 R v Folli [2001] NSWCCA 531 CASES CITED: R v JBV [2002] NSWCCA 212 R v MDB [2002] NSWCCA 354 R v PAH (unrep) NSWCCA 18/12/98 R v Sukkar [2005]NSWCCA 54 R v Ulrig (unrep) NSWCCA 24/10/96 R v Vonarx unrep VSCA 15/11/95 Stokes v The Queen (1960) 105 CLR
PARTIES: Christopher Thomas Healey v Regina
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/2031 CCAP
COUNSEL: (A) Mr R Pontello and S J Buchen (C) Dr P Power SC
SOLICITORS: (A) C Brennan (C) S Kavanagh
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