NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: Vincent EGAN v R [2010] NSWCCA 235
HEARING DATE(S): 08/10/2010
JUDGMENT DATE: 26 October 2010
JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Hall J at 2; Barr AJ at 3
DECISION: The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - indecent assault - two complainants - verdict of guilty on one complaint and not guilty on the other - whether a doubt about the reliability of one complainant implied a similar doubt about the other - whether the verdict of guilty unreasonable. - CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - two complainants - two independent indecent acts charged - whether trial judge erred in not directing jury not to engage in tendency reasoning. - CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - indecent assault - whether trial judge erred in not directing jury to exercise caution before convicting because Crown case depended largely on evidence of complainant.
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) - s 405C Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) - s 164
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
Hoch v the Queen (1998) 165 CLR 292 M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63 CASES CITED : MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606 R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 R v Markuleski [2001] NSWCCA 290
PARTIES: Vincent Martin Egan Regina
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2008/10113
COUNSEL: K Averre - Appellant J Girdham - Crown
SOLICITORS: S O'Connor - Appellant S Kavanagh - Crown
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/10113
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Armitage DCJ
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