Regina v Cohen [2002] NSWCCA 339

Regina v Cohen [2002] NSWCCA 339

The appeal was dismissed because the challenged evidence was admissible as part of a circumstantial case, the trial judge's directions on identification or resemblance, circumstantial evidence, reasonable doubt and flight disclosed no error adverse to the appellant, and although it would have been preferable to refer expressly to special circumstances, the evidence did not show sentencing error or justify departure from the statutory ratio.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['relevance of Money Seized From Home' 'admission of Conversation Between Accused and Witness' 'identification and Resemblance Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence Directions' 'reasonable Doubt' 'flight Directions' 'special Circumstances in Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['relevance of Money Seized From Home' 'admission of Conversation Between Accused and Witness' 'identification and Resemblance Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence Directions' 'reasonable Doubt' 'flight Directions' 'special Circumstances in Sentencing']

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 / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of money found in the home of Ms Hando was relevant and admissible.' "Whether evidence of the appellant's alleged conversation with Ms Hando should have been excluded under s90, s135 or s137 of the Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether evidence from Mr Clausen, including photo identification evidence, was admissible and properly treated as resemblance evidence rather than specific identification evidence.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in directions to the jury on circumstantial evidence.' 'Whether the trial judge erred by declining to give a further direction that suspicion was insufficient proof when the jury asked about reasonable doubt.' 'Whether a direction on flight was required.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider special circumstances under s44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the challenged evidence was admissible as part of a circumstantial case, the trial judge's directions on identification or resemblance, circumstantial evidence, reasonable doubt and flight disclosed no error adverse to the appellant, and although it would have been preferable to refer expressly to special circumstances, the evidence did not show sentencing error or justify departure from the statutory ratio.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']