Abdallah v R [2019] NSWCCA 294

Abdallah v R [2019] NSWCCA 294

By majority, the applicant's trial miscarried because the Crown's closing address and the way self-defence was left to the jury permitted reasoning that could deny the earlier murder acquittal. Although the manslaughter indictment and the leading of evidence were not themselves impermissible, the jury should have been clearly directed so that the applicant received the full benefit of her acquittal of murder and was not exposed to findings inconsistent with, or potentially controverting, that acquittal. The directions that the Crown did not have to prove an intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm were insufficient.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal From a Supreme Court Manslaughter Conviction After Retrial
Outcome
Leave granted to the extent necessary; appeal against conviction allowed; manslaughter verdict quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['double Jeopardy' 'principle of Incontrovertibility' 'prior Acquittal' 'manslaughter' 'murder' 'self Defence' 'excessive Self Defence' 'retrial' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['double Jeopardy' 'principle of Incontrovertibility' 'prior Acquittal' 'manslaughter' 'murder' 'self Defence' 'excessive Self Defence' 'retrial' 'jury Directions']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal From a Supreme Court Manslaughter Conviction After Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown's conduct of the manslaughter retrial controverted the applicant's earlier acquittal of murder." 'Whether the jury should have been directed about limitations on reasoning arising from the earlier acquittal of murder.' 'Whether the conviction for manslaughter should be quashed and a new trial ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the applicant's trial miscarried because the Crown's closing address and the way self-defence was left to the jury permitted reasoning that could deny the earlier murder acquittal. Although the manslaughter indictment and the leading of evidence were not themselves impermissible, the jury should have been clearly directed so that the applicant received the full benefit of her acquittal of murder and was not exposed to findings inconsistent with, or potentially controverting, that acquittal. The directions that the Crown did not have to prove an intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm were insufficient.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the extent necessary; appeal against conviction allowed; manslaughter verdict quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['To the extent necessary, grant leave to the applicant to appeal.' 'Allow the appeal against conviction.' 'Quash the verdict of guilty to manslaughter.' 'Order that there be a new trial.' 'The matter is listed for mention in the Supreme Court Arraignments List on 14 February 2020 or such other date as directed by...