REGINA v SALTAN [2002] NSWCCA 423

REGINA v SALTAN [2002] NSWCCA 423

Although continued use of the old terminology "accomplice" in directions under s165 of the Evidence Act 1995 is inappropriate, in the circumstances of this case the directions did not cause a miscarriage of justice. The trial judge defined the term, made clear that the witnesses were only said or alleged to be accomplices, warned the jury about unreliability, and directed the jury to consider the whole of the evidence. The jury was entitled to accept the prior statements of Karaman and Treiblmayr if it rejected their later denials, and the circumstantial evidence strongly reinforced the Crown case. The verdicts were not unsafe or unsatisfactory.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Convictions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unreliable Evidence Directions' 'evidence Act 1995, S165' 'use of the Word "accomplice"' 'hostile Witnesses' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['unreliable Evidence Directions' 'evidence Act 1995, S165' 'use of the Word "accomplice"' 'hostile Witnesses' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict']

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 Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Convictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in directions under s165 of the Evidence Act 1995 concerning evidence of persons who might reasonably be supposed to be criminally involved in the offences, including by using the word "accomplice".' 'Whether the verdicts should be set aside because they could not be supported having regard to the evidence or because there was a miscarriage of justice arising from confusing directions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although continued use of the old terminology "accomplice" in directions under s165 of the Evidence Act 1995 is inappropriate, in the circumstances of this case the directions did not cause a miscarriage of justice. The trial judge defined the term, made clear that the witnesses were only said or alleged to be accomplices, warned the jury about unreliability, and directed the jury to consider the whole of the evidence. The jury was entitled to accept the prior statements of Karaman and Treiblmayr if it rejected their later denials, and the circumstantial evidence strongly reinforced the Crown case. The verdicts were not unsafe or unsatisfactory.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']