Fantakis v R (No 2) [2023] NSWCCA 22
The Court held that the alternative timeframes presented by the Crown did not amount to reliance on distinct acts capable of founding separate bases for conviction; the case involved a single alleged act (murder by force), with uncertainty only as to when this act occurred. Therefore, there was no requirement for a unanimity direction and the additional ground of appeal fails.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 February 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application to Vary or Set Aside Prior Appellate Orders
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['unanimity Direction' 'misdirection' 'murder' 'appeal Procedure' 'grounds of Appeal' 'consequential Orders']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application to Vary or Set Aside Prior Appellate Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred by failing to give a unanimity direction to the jury where alternative factual scenarios (case theories) were presented by the Crown.' 'Whether the omission of a unanimity direction occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the alternative timeframes presented by the Crown did not amount to reliance on distinct acts capable of founding separate bases for conviction; the case involved a single alleged act (murder by force), with uncertainty only as to when this act occurred. Therefore, there was no requirement for a unanimity direction and the additional ground of appeal fails.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ['The application to set aside or vary the orders made by the Court on 3 February 2023 is 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