James Borodin v R, Irene Borodin v R, ED v R, Bogomiagkov v R [2006] NSWCCA 83

James Borodin v R, Irene Borodin v R, ED v R, Bogomiagkov v R [2006] NSWCCA 83

The amendments to the indictment did not cause any injustice or miscarriage of justice because the factual basis of the charges remained unchanged, any potential prejudice was mitigated by the judge's offer to recall witnesses for further cross-examination, and the only resultant disadvantage to the appellants was that the counts would be determined on their merits rather than based on technicalities. Thus, the appeal ground failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['trial Practice and Procedure' 'amendment of Indictment' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law'] ['trial Practice and Procedure' 'amendment of Indictment' 'miscarriage of Justice']

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 / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether amendment of indictment during Crown case resulted in a miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments to the indictment did not cause any injustice or miscarriage of justice because the factual basis of the charges remained unchanged, any potential prejudice was mitigated by the judge's offer to recall witnesses for further cross-examination, and the only resultant disadvantage to the appellants was that the counts would be determined on their merits rather than based on technicalities. Thus, the appeal ground failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeals dismissed.']