NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: GAO v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 384
HEARING DATE(S): 14 November 2006
JUDGMENT DATE: 14 November 2006
JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Hidden J at 27; Hislop J at 28
DECISION: Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION - hold for advantage - actual bodily harm - unreasonable verdict - inconsistent verdicts - whether verdict on one count necessitated rejection of the whole of complainant's evidence - length of deliberation - questions asked during deliberation - rational basis for distinguishing verdicts - whether miscarriage of justice
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Appeal Act 1912
CASES CITED: MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606 R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82
PARTIES: Yanling Gao (Appl) The Crown
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/1839
COUNSEL: B P Hancock (Appl) N Noman (Crown)
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Appl) Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/0490
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Charteris DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 16 December 2005
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 2006/1839
McCLELLAN CJ at CL HIDDEN J HISLOP J
TUESDAY 14 NOVEMBER 2006 GAO, Yanling v REGINA Judgment 1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: The appellant was tried in the District Court on two counts as follows:
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