Cliff v R [2023] NSWCCA 15

Cliff v R [2023] NSWCCA 15

Although some impugned remarks, viewed in isolation, were capable of criticism because they might suggest a positive preliminary finding about intoxication was required, the directions had to be assessed as a whole. The written and oral directions repeatedly and clearly stated that the Crown bore the onus of proving intent beyond reasonable doubt and that Mr Cliff bore no onus. In context, there was no real possibility that the jury thought an intermediate fact about intoxication or intent had to be established by Mr Cliff, or that the Crown did not need to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt taking account of possible intoxication. No miscarriage of justice or loss of a real chance of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Time for filing the application for leave to appeal was extended; leave to appeal was refused.
Legal Topics
['jury Directions' 'intoxication and Specific Intent' 'murder' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['jury Directions' 'intoxication and Specific Intent' 'murder' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time for filing the application for leave to appeal should be extended.' 'Whether leave under r 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) was required because no objection was taken to the impugned jury directions at trial.' "Whether the trial judge's directions on intoxication impermissibly introduced a staged approach, reversed the onus of proof, or undermined the criminal standard of proof." 'Whether any infelicities in the directions caused a miscarriage of justice or deprived the applicant of a real chance of acquittal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although some impugned remarks, viewed in isolation, were capable of criticism because they might suggest a positive preliminary finding about intoxication was required, the directions had to be assessed as a whole. The written and oral directions repeatedly and clearly stated that the Crown bore the onus of proving intent beyond reasonable doubt and that Mr Cliff bore no onus. In context, there was no real possibility that the jury thought an intermediate fact about intoxication or intent had to be established by Mr Cliff, or that the Crown did not need to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt taking account of possible intoxication. No miscarriage of justice or loss of a real chance of...

Court Disposition

Time for filing the application for leave to appeal was extended; leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

  • ['Time for filing the application for leave to appeal is extended to permit the application to be made.' 'Leave to appeal is refused.']