Holmes v R [2018] NSWCCA 211

Holmes v R [2018] NSWCCA 211

It was not open to a reasonable jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was one of the robbers. The circumstantial evidence did not exclude a reasonable possibility that someone other than the applicant committed the offence and brought the proceeds to his apartment.

Parties
Appellant: Daniel Holmes; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, applicant acquitted
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Robbery in Company, Circumstantial Evidence, Unreasonable Verdict
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Robbery in Company Circumstantial Evidence Unreasonable Verdict

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Holmes

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for robbery in company was unreasonable and not supportable on evidence
  2. 2 Whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty

Ratio Decidendi

It was not open to a reasonable jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was one of the robbers. The circumstantial evidence did not exclude a reasonable possibility that someone other than the applicant committed the offence and brought the proceeds to his apartment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, applicant acquitted

Orders

  • Grant the applicant leave to appeal against the conviction entered by the District Court at Campbelltown on 9 March 2018.
  • Set aside the conviction and sentence.