R v Xie (No 24) [2016] NSWSC 1925

R v Xie (No 24) [2016] NSWSC 1925

A Shepherd direction in the terms sought by the accused is not required because the evidence of Stain 91 does not amount to an intermediate fact indispensable to the inference of guilt, but is instead one aspect of the circumstantial evidence forming a complex of proof.

Parties
Prosecution: The Crown; Accused: Lian Bin (Robert) Xie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Jury Direction During Trial
Outcome
Application for Shepherd direction refused.
Legal Topics
Shepherd Direction, Circumstantial Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Shepherd Direction Circumstantial Evidence Jury Directions

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Lian Bin (Robert) Xie

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Jury Direction During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Shepherd direction should be given regarding Stain 91 and its evidentiary status as blood in support of the Crown's case.

Ratio Decidendi

A Shepherd direction in the terms sought by the accused is not required because the evidence of Stain 91 does not amount to an intermediate fact indispensable to the inference of guilt, but is instead one aspect of the circumstantial evidence forming a complex of proof.

Court Disposition

Application for Shepherd direction refused.