NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: PA v R [2015] NSWCCA 18 Hearing dates: 10 February 2015 Decision date: 27 February 2015 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Johnson J at [66] Hamill J at [67] Decision: Leave to appeal against conviction granted. Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – applicant convicted of one count of commit an act of indecency against a person aged 13 – acquitted on three other counts and the jury unable to agree on a fifth count – whether conviction on one count and the failure of the jury to agree on another was capable of giving rise to inconsistent verdicts – whether a failure by a jury to agree on a verdict could be regarded as analogous to a verdict – no authority in New South Wales – conflicting authority in Queensland and Victoria – inconsistent verdicts ground not made out – whether conviction unreasonable and not supported by the evidence – appeal dismissed. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 – s61M(2), Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s6(1) Evidence Act 1999 – s165B Cases Cited: Azzopardi v R [2001] HCA 25; 205 CLR 50 Black v R [1993] HCA 71; 179 CLR 44 Jones v R [1997] HCA 56; 191 CLR 439 at 453 Liberato v R (1985) 159 CLR 507 Longman v R [1989] HCA 60; 168 CLR 79 M v R [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487 Mackenzie v R [1996] HCA 35; 190 CLR 348 MFA v R [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606 Millar v The Queen [2003] WASCA 211 OGD v R (1997) 45 NSWLR 744 Osland v The Queen [1998] HCA 75; 197 CLR 316 Pillay and Ors v The Queen [2014] VSCA 249 R v CBF [2012] QCA 294 R v CX [2006] QCA 409 R v DAL [2005] QCA 281 R v R, GJ [2009] SASC 371; 105 SASR 506 R v Garrett [2009] QCA 300 R v Gipp (1998) 194 CLR 106 R v Markuleski (2001) 125 A Crim R 186 SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400 R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 TK v R [2009] NSWCCA 151; 74 NSWLR 299 Tukuafu v The Queen [2014] VSCA 345 Category: Principal judgment Parties: PA – Applicant Regina – Respondent Crown Representation: Counsel: AJ Bellanto QC/P Rowe - Applicant J Pickering SC – 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