NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: Taleb v R [2006] NSWCCA 119
HEARING DATE(S): 5 April 2006
JUDGMENT DATE: 13 April 2006
JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Simpson J at 13; Howie J at 94
DECISION: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; new trial ordered.
CATCHWORDS: appeal against conviction - whether summing up to the jury was lacking balance and unfair - function of trial judge in directing a jury - permissible limits of the judge's comment on facts - undermining of defence case in summing up - substantial miscarriage of justice - inappropriate to apply proviso - new trial
LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s6
Black v The Queen [1993] HCA 71; 179 CLR 44 R v Clewer (1953) CAR 37 R v Heuston (1995) 81 A Crim R 387 R v Hulse (1971) 1 SASR 327 R v Lau and Nguyen [2002] VSCA 157; 5 VR 129 R v Machin (1996) 68 SASR 526 R v Martin (1960) 60 SR NSW 286 CASES CITED: R v Meher [2004] NSWCCA 355 R v Mong [2002] VSCA 203; 136 A Crim R 502 R v O'Neil (1988) 48 SASR 51 R v Pavlukoff (1953) 106 CCC 249 R v RTB [2002] NSWCCA 104 R v Sinanovic [2000] NSWCCA 390 R v Zorad (1990) 19 NSWLR 91 RPS v The Queen [2000] HCA 3; 199 CLR 620 Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; 80 ALJR 444
PARTIES: Tarek Taleb - Appellant Crown - Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/2546
COUNSEL: S Odgers SC - Appellant V Lydiard - Crown
SOLICITORS: WM Bruce & Associates - Appellant S Kavanagh - Respondent
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