R v Dickson (No 16) [2014] NSWSC 1862

R v Dickson (No 16) [2014] NSWSC 1862

Applications by the accused for supplementary directions were granted in part and refused in part. The application for a directed verdict on Count 6 was refused because the issue depended on when the conspiracy was formed and whether the funds constituted proceeds of crime was a question of fact for the jury. The method of providing summing-up transcripts to the jury was grounded in the complexity of charges and the selective nature of factual summaries.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Applications After Summing Up, Prior to Jury Verdict
Outcome
Applications for additional directions partly granted and partly refused; application for directed verdict refused.
Legal Topics
['good Character Direction' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'execution of Contracts' 'application for Directed Verdict' 'jury Access to Summing Up']
['criminal Law'] ['good Character Direction' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'execution of Contracts' 'application for Directed Verdict' 'jury Access to Summing Up']

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 / Interlocutory Applications After Summing Up, Prior to Jury Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a good character direction should be given for a co-conspirator' 'Whether additional directions should be given relating to exculpatory explanations for circumstantial evidence' 'Whether a direction should be given regarding the date of contract execution' 'Whether a contract for sale of intellectual property requires formalities' 'Whether a directed verdict should be given on Count 6 relating to proceeds of crime' 'What parts of the summing-up transcript may be provided to the jury']

Ratio Decidendi

Applications by the accused for supplementary directions were granted in part and refused in part. The application for a directed verdict on Count 6 was refused because the issue depended on when the conspiracy was formed and whether the funds constituted proceeds of crime was a question of fact for the jury. The method of providing summing-up transcripts to the jury was grounded in the complexity of charges and the selective nature of factual summaries.

Court Disposition

Applications for additional directions partly granted and partly refused; application for directed verdict refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for a directed verdict on Count 6 refused.' 'Application by the accused for directions to supplement summing-up granted in some respects and in some respects refused.' "Matter raised by the Crown to be brought to jury's attention." 'Some parts of the summing-up transcript to be made available to the...