R v Jaroslav Larry MURANY [2007] NSWDC 24

R v Jaroslav Larry MURANY [2007] NSWDC 24

The second count was not latently duplicitous merely because the Crown relied on two alternative factual scenarios leading to the one alleged consequence of grievous bodily harm. R v Giam was distinguishable because it involved separate false statements within counts, whereas this count concerned one set of injuries. The binding and applicable authority was R v Serratore, which supported the permissibility of the Crown presenting alternative factual scenarios; any sentencing difficulty was not insurmountable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application Under S 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act to Quash the Second Count on the Indictment Before Retrial
Outcome
The application to quash indictment is refused.
Legal Topics
['latent Duplicity' 'indictment' 'alternative Factual Scenarios' 'legal Responsibility' 'grievous Bodily Harm']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['latent Duplicity' 'indictment' 'alternative Factual Scenarios' 'legal Responsibility' 'grievous Bodily Harm']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application Under S 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act to Quash the Second Count on the Indictment Before Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second count on the indictment should be quashed for latent duplicity because the Crown proposed to rely on alternative and mutually inconsistent factual scenarios for the alleged grievous bodily harm.' 'Whether possible uncertainty about which factual scenario a jury accepted would prevent sentencing if the accused were convicted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second count was not latently duplicitous merely because the Crown relied on two alternative factual scenarios leading to the one alleged consequence of grievous bodily harm. R v Giam was distinguishable because it involved separate false statements within counts, whereas this count concerned one set of injuries. The binding and applicable authority was R v Serratore, which supported the permissibility of the Crown presenting alternative factual scenarios; any sentencing difficulty was not insurmountable.

Court Disposition

The application to quash indictment is refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to quash the indictment is refused.']