R v Harriden [2000] NSWCCA 118
The verdict was not unreasonable because the jury was entitled to accept the evidence of Messrs Munroe and McCallum identifying the appellant as the person who removed and used the baton, notwithstanding inconsistencies, other witnesses, the melee, and visibility arguments; the trial judge's direction cured any potential prejudice from the Crown Prosecutor's comment about the appellant's brother not being called.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 March 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; sentence confirmed
- Legal Topics
- ['malicious Wounding' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'identification Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'failure to Call Witness']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the jury's verdict convicting the appellant of maliciously wounding Leslie Hanrahan was unreasonable." "Whether a Crown Prosecutor's comment about the appellant's failure to call his brother at trial advanced the appeal despite the trial judge's direction."]
Ratio Decidendi
The verdict was not unreasonable because the jury was entitled to accept the evidence of Messrs Munroe and McCallum identifying the appellant as the person who removed and used the baton, notwithstanding inconsistencies, other witnesses, the melee, and visibility arguments; the trial judge's direction cured any potential prejudice from the Crown Prosecutor's comment about the appellant's brother not being called.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; sentence confirmed
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed' 'Sentence confirmed']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment