DS v R [2023] NSWCCA 151
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the trial judge erred in refusing to sever counts 4 and 5 or to discharge the jury after count 5 was no billed, as judicial directions were sufficient to address the risk of prejudice. The jury's verdicts revealed logical and separate consideration of each count, and no miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the course of the trial.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 23 June 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Conviction; Appeal Decision
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['appeals Against Conviction' 'severance of Indictment' 'jury Discharge' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'sexual and Physical Assault' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'judicial Directions']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Conviction; Appeal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the 'depraved' nature of counts 4 and 5 warranted severance and separate trials" 'Whether failure to discharge the jury after count 5 was no billed occasioned a miscarriage of justice' 'Whether jury was prejudiced by evidence related to count 5 impairing their impartiality']
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the trial judge erred in refusing to sever counts 4 and 5 or to discharge the jury after count 5 was no billed, as judicial directions were sufficient to address the risk of prejudice. The jury's verdicts revealed logical and separate consideration of each count, and no miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the course of the trial.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal against conviction granted' 'Appeal dismissed']
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