NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: Pengilley v R [2006] NSWCCA 163 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): 28 April 2006
JUDGMENT DATE: 24 May 2006
JUDGMENT OF: McColl JA at 1; Adams J at 51; Latham J at 52
DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Quash the conviction of the appellant for malicious wounding and the sentence imposed upon him following that conviction. 3. Order a new trial.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Conviction appeal - charge of malicious wounding contrary to s 35(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 - trial judge failed to explain concept of recklessness - whether jury properly directed as to meaning of maliciously.
Crimes Act 1900 LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Criminal Appeal Rules 1952
R v Cato [1976] 1 All ER 260 R v Chai [2002] HCA 12; (2002) 76 ALJR 628 R v Coleman (1990) 19 NSWLR 467 R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 R v Grant [2002] NSWCCA 243; (2002) 55 NSWLR 80 CASES CITED: R v Micalizzi [2004] NSWCCA 406 R v Mostyn [2004] NSWCCA 97; (2004) 145 A Crim R 304 R v Safwan (1986) 8 NSWLR 97 R v Stokes and Difford (1990) 51 A Crim R 25 R v Whittaker (1993) 68 A Crim R 476 R v Williams (1990) 50 A Crim R 213 Saffron (No 1) v R (1988) 17 NSWLR 395
PARTIES: Regina, Conrad Eugene Pengilley
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/544
COUNSEL: C Smith - Appellant P Miller - Crown
SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh, Crown Solicitors S O'Connor - Legal Aid Commission
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