R v Seller; R v McCarthy [2015] NSWSC 1299

R v Seller; R v McCarthy [2015] NSWSC 1299

The application was refused because the Crown case had been particularised in extensive and explicit detail over a long period, the opening did not depart from or abandon that particularised case, and the Crown was not required in its opening to recite every allegation or particular in detail. The accused were not misled and had adequate notice of the case to meet.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding Concerning an Indictment for Conspiracy to Dishonestly Influence a Commonwealth Public Official / Application by the Accused During Trial to Restrict or Confine the Crown Case to Misrepresentations Referred to in the Crown Opening
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['particulars' 'crown Opening' 'conspiracy' 'misrepresentations' 'adequacy of Notice of Crown Case']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['particulars' 'crown Opening' 'conspiracy' 'misrepresentations' 'adequacy of Notice of Crown Case']

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 Proceeding Concerning an Indictment for Conspiracy to Dishonestly Influence a Commonwealth Public Official / Application by the Accused During Trial to Restrict or Confine the Crown Case to Misrepresentations Referred to in the Crown Opening

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown was restricted or limited to the misrepresentations specifically referred to in its opening to the jury.' 'Whether the Crown case as opened differed from the case particularised and led at trial.' 'Whether the accused had been provided with adequate particulars despite the Crown opening not referring in detail to every alleged misrepresentation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the Crown case had been particularised in extensive and explicit detail over a long period, the opening did not depart from or abandon that particularised case, and the Crown was not required in its opening to recite every allegation or particular in detail. The accused were not misled and had adequate notice of the case to meet.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['Application refused']