Constantinidis v R; Lazar v R [2022] NSWCCA 4

Constantinidis v R; Lazar v R [2022] NSWCCA 4

The verdicts of guilty entered by the trial judge in respect of both appellants, Constantinidis and Lazar, were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. Substantial inconsistencies, unreliability, and improbabilities in the evidence of the critical Crown witness, Witness B, coupled with circumstantial evidence indicating reasonable possibilities consistent with innocence, amounted to a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellants. The trial judge's advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence did not overcome that doubt. The additional failings to adequately reason through s 165 Evidence Act warnings and good character implications reinforced the unreasonable verdict....

Parties
Applicant: Achilles Constantinidis; Applicant: Ian David Lazar; Crown: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeals allowed; convictions quashed; findings of not guilty entered.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Unreasonable Verdict, Judge Alone Trial, Perverting the Course of Justice, Character Evidence, Reasonable Doubt, Reliability of Witness Evidence
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Unreasonable Verdict Judge Alone Trial Perverting the Course of Justice Character Evidence Reasonable Doubt Reliability of Witness Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Achilles Constantinidis

Applicant

Ian David Lazar

Applicant

Regina

Crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or not supported by the evidence
  2. 2 Whether a proper s 165 Evidence Act warning regarding unreliable evidence was given and heeded
  3. 3 Whether applicant's good character was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The verdicts of guilty entered by the trial judge in respect of both appellants, Constantinidis and Lazar, were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. Substantial inconsistencies, unreliability, and improbabilities in the evidence of the critical Crown witness, Witness B, coupled with circumstantial evidence indicating reasonable possibilities consistent with innocence, amounted to a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellants. The trial judge's advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence did not overcome that doubt. The additional failings to adequately reason through s 165 Evidence Act warnings and good character implications reinforced the unreasonable verdict....

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; convictions quashed; findings of not guilty entered.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted for both applicants.
  • Appeal of Achilles Constantinidis upheld on grounds 3 and 4.