NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: GDD v R; NJC v R [2010] NSWCCA 62
HEARING DATE(S): 11 February 2010
JUDGMENT DATE: 15 April 2010
JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Simpson J at 67; RA Hulme J at 125
In each appeal, appeal allowed. DECISION: Conviction and sentence quashed. New trial ordered.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Trial - Address by Crown Prosecutor - Alleged misstatements of fact - Departures from the Crown case as presented, inapt submissions to the jury, assertions of personal opinion - HELD - (Grove J and Simpson J - RA Hulme J dissenting) - The cumulative effect of the defects in the Crown Prosecutor's address and the insufficiency of some corrections by the presiding Judge caused a miscarriage
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
Causevic v R [2008] NSWCCA 238 Gonzales v R [2007] NSWCCA 321 Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; 81 ALJR 1309 Livermore v R [2006] NSWCCA 334; (2006) 67 NSWLR 659 M v The Queen (1995) 181 CLR 487 CASES CITED : MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606 R v KNP [2006] NSWCCA 213; (2006) 66 NSWLR 227 R v Liristis (2004) 146 A Crim R 547 R v McCullough (1982) 6 A Crim R 274 R v Roulston (1976) 2 NZLR 644 R v Rugan (2001) 122 A Crim R 1 Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657
GDD - Applicant PARTIES: NJC - Applicant Regina - Respondent/Crown
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/15644; 2007/13935
G Brady with E Cowpe - Applicant GDD COUNSEL: T Gartelmann - Applicant NJC M Grogan - Respondent/Crown
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