Not the A.Crim.Rs but something for the good humoured.


New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

(Click below to go to the judgement)

1 November 2021

JC v R [2021] NSWCCA 254

Conviction Appeal: incompetent counsel alleged due to failure to raise concoction with multiple complainants, closing address of Crown was improper and count 11 was inconsistent with count 12.  Concoction was raised with counsel by judge, so no dice on appeal. The Crown made errors in its address but the judge corrected them. Appeal dismissed.

1 November 2021

Greenaway v R [2021] NSWCCA 253

Conviction and Sentence Appeal: excellent recitation of the principles on admission of tendency evidence, uncharged sexual acts and the standard of proof to be applied to uncharged acts in multi-complainant matters - Bauer approved, not beyond reasonable doubt.

26 October 2021

Pratten v R [2021] NSWCCA 251

Conviction Appeal: Shiv found not guilty on four counts but guilty on one. Appeal argued inconsistent verdicts from Jury.

13 October 2021

Shiv v R [2021] NSWCCA 245
Conviction Appeal: Shiv found not guilty on four counts but guilty on one. Appeal argued inconsistent verdicts from Jury and that the decision should be overturned. Also argued the Markuleski Direction given at trial was insufficient. The CCA found the second ground insufficient but on the first ground overturned the jury verdict and quashed the conviction. The typically careful and thorough decision of Leeming JA sets out the grounds and while reads at times like he was not going to uphold the appeal, his Honour, with the concurrance of a very strong bench (Hamill and Lonergan JJ) quashed the conviction. 

11 October 2021

Perry v R [2021] NSWCCA 244

Sentence Appeal: De Simoni. Documentation provided by the parties assumed the defendant had pleaded guilty to a more serious offence than in truth. The parties’ error was identified during the hearing but the question arose, did the sentencing judge nonetheless fall into error — whether sentence imposed was so far outside the range of sentences available that there must have been error?

Zreika v R [2021] NSWCCA 243
Sentence Appeal where applicant charged with dangerous driving occasioning death and dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm – whether there was error in the assessment of objective seriousness.

8 OCTOBER 2021

Lam v R (Cth); Lay v R (Cth); To v R (Cth) [2021] NSWCCA 242
Sentence Appeal (Commonwealth offences) – “Xiao” error, parity considered. Charges were possess commercial quantity of a border controlled drug and attempt to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug; aid and abet an attempt to traffic in a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug – sentences imposed in 2014 and 2016.

Awraham v R (Cth) [2021] NSWCCA 241
Sentence Appeal – state drug and firearm possession offences with Commonwealth offence of attempt to possess a commercial quantity of border control drug (cocaine) – question of whether sentence imposed for Commonwealth offence was manifestly excessive.

Hughes v R [2021] NSWCCA 238
Conviction Appeal concerning a plea of guilty to one “rolled up” count of obtaining a financial advantage by deception contrary to s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), appeal on the basis that the conviction was wrong in law and the element of deception was not made out — by guilty plea admission to all of the elements of the offence. This case also deals with the elements of the offence under section 192D(1)(c) and 192E of the Crimes Act NSW.

6 OCTOBER 2021


Mura v R [2021] NSWCCA 240
Conviction Appeal about asserted unreasonable verdict on offences of participate as client in act of child prostitution – whether Prosecution had proved that applicant knew complainants were under 18 years at time of alleged offences. The case also deals with whether one complainant gave evidence amounting to a retracting in cross-examination and whether the other complainant’s evidence of post-offence conversation are capable of proving applicant’s knowledge at time of offence – relevance of "retrospectant" evidence considered

Chartres-Abbott v R [2021] NSWCCA 239
Sentence Appeal concerning manifest excess on one count of large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and two counts of commercial quantities of heroin and methylamphetamine with two counts of possess shortened firearm – 14 years on top with Non Parole Period of 8.5 Years. Special circumstances and reduced moral culpability, sentence required a more substantial degree of concurrency – New sentence of 10 years with NPP: 6 years. 


1 OCTOBER 2021

Clarke v R [2021] NSWCCA 236
Sentence Appeal on sole ground of manifest excess for multiple offences – structure of sentencing, what amounts to manifest excess ground, was the adjustment to the statutory ratio or special circumstances sufficient – whether the Court had removed the effect of a finding of special circumstances as a result of its accumulation.


Pham v R [2021] NSWCCA 234
Sentence Appeal dealing with procedure on Form 1 on sentence - failure to ask personally the offender about Form 1 offences.

SafeWork NSW v Williams Timber Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Easy Fall Guttering Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCCA 233
Prosecution Appeal about costs where there was a refusal by the sentencing judge to make a costs order. A brilliant decision by Justice Wilson on the role of procedural fairness, the role of costs orders in sentencing and the considerations that may lead to no costs being ordered.

Justice James Edelman.jpeg

High Court of Australia

(Click below to go to the judgement)

6 October 2021


Edwards v The Queen [2021] HCA 28
Conviction Appeal 3 to 2 MAJORITY decision. Dealing with the Prosecution's duty of disclosure in sections 141 and 142 of Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). The appellant's mobile phone seized by police upon arrest and police made copy of data on mobile phone ("Cellebrite Download"). The prosecution informed defence lawyers of existence of Cellebrite Download prior to trial but did not serve a copy. The case dealt with whether this amounted to the prosecution failing to give full and proper pre-trial disclosure required by s 142 – Whether Cellebrite Download contained material falling within s 142(1)(i) or s 142(1)(k) – Whether forensic value of contents of Cellebrite Download for appellant's case rose above level of speculation – Whether non-provision of Cellebrite Download to appellant caused miscarriage of justice

1 September 2021












Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2019 [2021] HCA 26
Majority = Gageler, Gordon and Steward JJ.
Dissent = Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gleeson JJ.
Deciding Decision = Edelman J.
Referral to the HCA on a question of whether the decision in R v Campbell [1997] 2 VR 585 was correct to decide that the standard of recklessness (in the offence of recklessly causing serious injury) required foresight of the probability of harm. Reference dismissed with costs against DPP (which it had sought in the event of failure).

Screen Shot 2021-11-02 at 11.11.58 am.png
amateur sloth.webp

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this page are not intended to reflect the views of the author and this page and all its contents are provided for entertainment purposes only. It should not be taken as legal advice nor seriously, by anyone, ever. Any views or opinions expressed on webpages linked from this page are not the responsibility of the author or publisher of this page and no liability is taken or offered for the contents of any third party page. Every attempt has been made to ensure information is accurately reported, however mistakes and errors will from time to time occur and where that is the case contact the website to let us know what needs to be fixed up.

PRIVACY: We do not knowingly nor willinging collect your personal information when you visit this site, except that we keep a track of how many visitors come to this page each day. We do not maintain records of who visits, nor when and we are very happy to allow you to freely travel the internet in your search for information, news, insight and a little bit of good humour.