R v Hawi & ors (No 22) [2011] NSWSC 1668

R v Hawi & ors (No 22) [2011] NSWSC 1668

The application was refused because the trial involved seven accused, had been proceeding for three months, included a substantial body of evidence, and raised self-defence issues requiring explanation of s 418 of the Crimes Act 1900 and the Crown's burden to negative self-defence; those complications made a Prasad invitation inappropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Application for Prasad Direction After Close of Crown Case
Outcome
Application for Prasad direction refused.
Legal Topics
['prasad Direction' 'no Case Submission' 'jury Verdict' 'self Defence']
['criminal Law'] ['prasad Direction' 'no Case Submission' 'jury Verdict' 'self Defence']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Application for Prasad Direction After Close of Crown Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the circumstances were appropriate to invite the jury to consider returning a verdict of not guilty after the close of the Crown case.' 'Whether the complexity and volume of the evidence, and issues of self-defence, made a Prasad invitation inappropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the trial involved seven accused, had been proceeding for three months, included a substantial body of evidence, and raised self-defence issues requiring explanation of s 418 of the Crimes Act 1900 and the Crown's burden to negative self-defence; those complications made a Prasad invitation inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for Prasad direction refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']