NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: AE v R [2008] NSWCCA 52
HEARING DATE(S): 29/2/08
JUDGMENT DATE: 20 March 2008
JUDGMENT OF: Bell JA at 1; Hulme J at 1; Latham J at 1
1. Allow the appeal DECISION: 2. Set aside the verdicts and convictions on counts 11, 14 and 15 3. Substitute a verdict of acquittal on count 11 4. Direct a new trial on counts 14 and 15
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - verdict inconsistent and unreasonable having regard to the verdicts on other counts – conviction quashed – verdict of acquittal entered - EVIDENCE – tendency and/or coincidence evidence – whether probative value substantially outweighed prejudicial effect – miscarriage of justice – conviction quashed – new trial ordered
LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193 Hoch v R (1988) 165 CLR 292 M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487 MFA v R [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606 CASES CITED : Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 R v ATM [2000] NSWCCA 475 R v Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510 R v Ellis [2003] NSWCCA 319 R v Heyde (1990) 20 NSWLR 235 Zoneff v R [2000] HCA 28; 200 CLR 234
PARTIES: AE (Appellant) Regina
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/00002776
COUNSEL: Ms C Davenport SC (Appellant) Mr P Ingram (Crown)
SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Appellant) S Kavanagh (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/61/0040
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