R v Esho, R v Sako [2001] NSWCCA 415

R v Esho, R v Sako [2001] NSWCCA 415

The evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict under s 35 Crimes Act 1900 even absent proof of specific intent. Directions on 'maliciously', though not extensive, did not cause miscarriage of justice given nature of acts. Sentences were within statutory maximum and justified by aggravating circumstances. Parity principles did not apply given co-offender’s acquittal on appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Edward Esho; Appellant: Thamir Sako; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Malicious Infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm, Affray, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Parity of Sentence, Reliability of Admissions, Identification, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Malicious Infliction of Grievous Bodily Harm Affray Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence Joint Criminal Enterprise Parity of Sentence Reliability of Admissions +2 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Esho

Appellant

Thamir Sako

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdict on malicious infliction of grievous bodily harm under s 35 Crimes Act 1900 was unreasonable.
  2. 2 Whether jury directions on 'maliciously' and intent were inadequate.
  3. 3 Whether verdict unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict under s 35 Crimes Act 1900 even absent proof of specific intent. Directions on 'maliciously', though not extensive, did not cause miscarriage of justice given nature of acts. Sentences were within statutory maximum and justified by aggravating circumstances. Parity principles did not apply given co-offender’s acquittal on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Esho: appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal dismissed.
  • Sako: appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal dismissed.