CDR v Regina [2005] NSWCCA 404

CDR v Regina [2005] NSWCCA 404

Although the trial judge's references to guilt and innocence as alternatives were inappropriate, the summing up as a whole repeatedly and clearly directed the jury that the Crown bore the onus of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused did not have to prove his innocence, so the jury would not have been confused. Count 5 was sufficiently put as a continuing course of resistance while the appellant was being dealt with by Constable Siva, especially at the rear of the truck, and the appellant understood the case he had to meet; there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Conviction Appeal / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Convictions; All Grounds Except Grounds E and F Were Abandoned, and the Sentence Appeal and Crown Cross Appeal Were Abandoned.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'jury Directions' 'burden and Standard of Proof' 'robbery' 'assault Police' 'resist Police' 'particularisation of Offences']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['conviction Appeal' 'jury Directions' 'burden and Standard of Proof' 'robbery' 'assault Police' 'resist Police' 'particularisation of Offences']

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

Conviction Appeal / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Convictions; All Grounds Except Grounds E and F Were Abandoned, and the Sentence Appeal and Crown Cross Appeal Were Abandoned.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred by directing the jury that they had to determine whether the accused was guilty or innocent.' "Whether the Crown's failure to identify the specific act or acts constituting Count 5, resisting Constable Siva, caused the trial to miscarry."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the trial judge's references to guilt and innocence as alternatives were inappropriate, the summing up as a whole repeatedly and clearly directed the jury that the Crown bore the onus of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused did not have to prove his innocence, so the jury would not have been confused. Count 5 was sufficiently put as a continuing course of resistance while the appellant was being dealt with by Constable Siva, especially at the rear of the truck, and the appellant understood the case he had to meet; there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']