Livermore v R [2006] NSWCCA 334

Livermore v R [2006] NSWCCA 334

The Crown Prosecutor's closing address contained improper personal opinion, ridicule of the defence case, and disparagement of a Crown witness whose evidence was central to the defence, amounting to a serious departure from the required standards of fairness and procedural justice. The trial judge's directions were insufficient to cure the prejudice. Consequently, there was a miscarriage of justice and the convictions should be quashed with a new trial ordered.

Parties
Appellant: Dean John Livermore; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (district Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Jury Trial, Role and Duties of Prosecutor, Professional Ethics, Miscarriage of Justice, Closing Address, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Jury Trial Role and Duties of Prosecutor Professional Ethics Miscarriage of Justice Closing Address Procedural Fairness

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 7 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dean John Livermore

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Prosecutor's closing address caused a miscarriage of justice
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury after the Crown Prosecutor's address
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in not giving proper directions to cure inappropriate prosecutorial comments

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown Prosecutor's closing address contained improper personal opinion, ridicule of the defence case, and disparagement of a Crown witness whose evidence was central to the defence, amounting to a serious departure from the required standards of fairness and procedural justice. The trial judge's directions were insufficient to cure the prejudice. Consequently, there was a miscarriage of justice and the convictions should be quashed with a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Convictions and sentences imposed on the appellant on 5 August 2005 are quashed.