Disano v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 125

Disano v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 125

Leave under rule 4 was refused and the appeal dismissed because the trial judge's directions on provocation were correct, the mere presence of self-defence and provocation did not require a specific s23(3)(a) proportionality direction, the Crown's impugned remarks did not require correction when read in context, and no miscarriage of justice or unfair trial was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Murder / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'provocation' 'jury Directions' 'self Defence' 'criminal Appeal Rules Rule 4']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['murder' 'provocation' 'jury Directions' 'self Defence' 'criminal Appeal Rules Rule 4']

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 for Murder / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's directions on provocation were inadequate or erroneous because the jury were not directed under s23(3)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 that provocation is not negatived by lack of reasonable proportion between the act causing death and the deceased's conduct." 'Whether leave should be granted under rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules where the alleged misdirection was not raised at trial.' 'Whether remarks made by the Crown required a corrective direction about proportionality in the context of provocation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave under rule 4 was refused and the appeal dismissed because the trial judge's directions on provocation were correct, the mere presence of self-defence and provocation did not require a specific s23(3)(a) proportionality direction, the Crown's impugned remarks did not require correction when read in context, and no miscarriage of justice or unfair trial was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']