Dudley Mark Aslett v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 49

Dudley Mark Aslett v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 49

Directions given to the jury sufficiently warned about the unreliability of Bonham's evidence as an accomplice and liar; evidence identifying appellant was admissible; prior inconsistent statements were properly admitted; errors in sentencing regarding aggravating factors and proportionality required intervention to resentence, but conviction appeal was dismissed as no miscarriage of justice occurred.

Parties
Appellant: Dudley Mark Aslett; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence allowed; sentences (other than count 8) quashed and substituted
Legal Topics
Evidence of Accomplice, Jury Directions, Admissibility of Evidence, Sentencing Principles, Corroboration, Miscarriage of Justice, Prior Inconsistent Statements, Credibility, Aggravating Factors, Protection of Society, Manifestly Excessive Sentence
Criminal Law Evidence of Accomplice Jury Directions Admissibility of Evidence Sentencing Principles Corroboration Miscarriage of Justice Prior Inconsistent Statements +4 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dudley Mark Aslett

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in not giving a s165 Evidence Act direction regarding the witness Christopher Bonham
  2. 2 Whether the jury should have been discharged after Crown opened on a topic unsupported by evidence
  3. 3 Admissibility of Bonham's identification evidence of the accused

Ratio Decidendi

Directions given to the jury sufficiently warned about the unreliability of Bonham's evidence as an accomplice and liar; evidence identifying appellant was admissible; prior inconsistent statements were properly admitted; errors in sentencing regarding aggravating factors and proportionality required intervention to resentence, but conviction appeal was dismissed as no miscarriage of justice occurred.

Court Disposition

appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence allowed; sentences (other than count 8) quashed and substituted

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction is dismissed
  • Application for leave to appeal against the sentences is granted, appeal allowed, sentences (other than the sentence on the eighth count) are quashed