Bushby v R [2016] NSWCCA 205

Bushby v R [2016] NSWCCA 205

On an independent assessment of the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to accept Bodeker's evidence that the appellant was driving at the time of impact, notwithstanding reasons for caution, and to treat descriptions from other witnesses and the appellant's false post-offence statements about the car being stolen as supporting that conclusion. The Court was not persuaded that the jury must have had a reasonable doubt, so the guilty verdicts were not unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court of NSW Convictions After Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'failing to Stop After Impact Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'identification Evidence' 'post Offence Conduct' 'lies and Consciousness of Guilt']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Appeals'] ['dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'failing to Stop After Impact Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'identification Evidence' 'post Offence Conduct' 'lies and Consciousness of Guilt']

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 Conviction Appeal / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court of NSW Convictions After Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence.' 'Whether, upon the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was driving the vehicle at the time of impact.' "Whether the appellant's post-offence statements and conduct could be treated as deliberate lies showing consciousness of guilt."]

Ratio Decidendi

On an independent assessment of the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to accept Bodeker's evidence that the appellant was driving at the time of impact, notwithstanding reasons for caution, and to treat descriptions from other witnesses and the appellant's false post-offence statements about the car being stolen as supporting that conclusion. The Court was not persuaded that the jury must have had a reasonable doubt, so the guilty verdicts were not unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']