BP v. Regina, SW v. Regina [2006] NSWCCA 172
The jury directions sufficiently conveyed the prosecution's burden to prove the appellants knew the acts were seriously wrong, not merely mischievous, and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict beyond reasonable doubt. There was no miscarriage of justice in the directions or the verdicts.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 June 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['doli Incapax' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'directions to Jury' 'criminal Responsibility of Children']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that each appellant, being under 14, knew the act was seriously wrong (doli incapax)' 'Whether jury directions on doli incapax were adequate' 'Whether the verdicts were reasonable given the evidence on doli incapax']
Ratio Decidendi
The jury directions sufficiently conveyed the prosecution's burden to prove the appellants knew the acts were seriously wrong, not merely mischievous, and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict beyond reasonable doubt. There was no miscarriage of justice in the directions or the verdicts.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed
Orders
- ['Appeal of BP dismissed.' 'Appeal of SW dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment