R v Kucukakyuz [2023] NSWDC 77

R v Kucukakyuz [2023] NSWDC 77

There is no evidence capable of establishing that providing information to Howard was conduct intended to pervert a 'course of justice' within the meaning of s 319 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), as police investigations do not themselves form part of the course of justice. Therefore, Count 1 must be directed in favour of the accused. However, sufficient evidence exists for Count 2 (hindering investigation) to go to the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Application for Directed Verdict at Close of Crown Case
Outcome
Directed verdict entered for Count 1 (pervert course of justice); Count 2 (hinder investigation) to proceed to the jury.
Legal Topics
['perverting the Course of Justice' 'hindering Police Investigation' 'directed Verdict' 'no Case Submission']
['criminal Law'] ['perverting the Course of Justice' 'hindering Police Investigation' 'directed Verdict' 'no Case Submission']

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 / Ruling on Application for Directed Verdict at Close of Crown Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether providing information to a suspect with intent to pervert the course of justice is made out when only a police investigation, not judicial proceedings, is ongoing' "Whether police investigation constitutes 'the course of justice' under s 319 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)" 'Whether there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury for counts of perverting justice and hindering investigation']

Ratio Decidendi

There is no evidence capable of establishing that providing information to Howard was conduct intended to pervert a 'course of justice' within the meaning of s 319 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), as police investigations do not themselves form part of the course of justice. Therefore, Count 1 must be directed in favour of the accused. However, sufficient evidence exists for Count 2 (hindering investigation) to go to the jury.

Court Disposition

Directed verdict entered for Count 1 (pervert course of justice); Count 2 (hinder investigation) to proceed to the jury.

Orders

  • ['Directed verdict for accused in relation to Count 1' 'Count 2 to proceed to the jury']