REGINA v. INGENHOFF [2000] NSWCCA 371

REGINA v. INGENHOFF [2000] NSWCCA 371

The conviction for malicious wounding could not stand because it was inconsistent with the acquittals on the firearm possession charge, the firearm being alleged to have caused the wounding. The miscarriage of justice was appropriately remedied by setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial, because the order was discretionary and facultative and there was no basis to distinguish the appellant's case from Hollier or to preclude the Crown from seeking to proceed consistently with the relevant High Court principles.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction on One Count of Malicious Wounding / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction set aside; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
['inconsistent Verdicts' 'malicious Wounding' 'new Trial' 'discretion Under Criminal Appeal Act 1912 S.8(1)']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['inconsistent Verdicts' 'malicious Wounding' 'new Trial' 'discretion Under Criminal Appeal Act 1912 S.8(1)']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction on One Count of Malicious Wounding / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's conviction for malicious wounding could stand where both accused had been acquitted of possession of the firearm alleged to have caused the wounding." 'Whether, after allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction, the Court should order a new trial under s.8(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction for malicious wounding could not stand because it was inconsistent with the acquittals on the firearm possession charge, the firearm being alleged to have caused the wounding. The miscarriage of justice was appropriately remedied by setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial, because the order was discretionary and facultative and there was no basis to distinguish the appellant's case from Hollier or to preclude the Crown from seeking to proceed consistently with the relevant High Court principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction set aside; new trial ordered

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld' 'Conviction set aside' 'New trial ordered']