R v Hodge [2002] NSWCCA 10

R v Hodge [2002] NSWCCA 10

Leave under r 4 was refused because no objection was taken to the admission of the denials and no relevant directions were sought; the trial judge was not shown to have erred in circumstances where the lies were not put as consciousness of guilt and the issue was confined to credit. The direction that the jury could not hold the appellant's partial silence against him was adequate. In any event, the Crown case negativing provocation was strong and no miscarriage of justice was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a Murder Conviction After Jury Trial in the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['murder' 'manslaughter' 'provocation' 'summing Up' 'lies' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'credit' 'right to Silence' 'rule 4 Leave']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['murder' 'manslaughter' 'provocation' 'summing Up' 'lies' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'credit' 'right to Silence' 'rule 4 Leave']

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 a Murder Conviction After Jury Trial in the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge failed to direct the jury adequately about the use that could be made of the appellant's denials to police and alleged lies." "Whether admission of the appellant's denials to police caused a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether a Zoneff direction was required where lies were not relied upon as consciousness of guilt but went to credit.' "Whether the trial judge failed to direct the jury adequately in relation to the appellant's selective silence in the record of interview."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave under r 4 was refused because no objection was taken to the admission of the denials and no relevant directions were sought; the trial judge was not shown to have erred in circumstances where the lies were not put as consciousness of guilt and the issue was confined to credit. The direction that the jury could not hold the appellant's partial silence against him was adequate. In any event, the Crown case negativing provocation was strong and no miscarriage of justice was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Leave under r 4 to argue the first and second grounds was refused.' 'Leave under r 4 to argue the third ground was refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']