Regina v Rushton [2000] NSWCCA 513

Regina v Rushton [2000] NSWCCA 513

The conviction had to be quashed because the jury were directed that they could use as a consciousness of guilt lies the appellant's statements that he had the van all day and did not lend it to anyone, while the Crown also relied on at least one of those same statements as true and essential to proving guilt. This presented the jury with a false and confusing issue, caused the trial to miscarry, and the Court was not persuaded that the proviso under s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 should be applied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; retrial ordered.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'summing Up' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'lies' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'criminal Appeal Proviso']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['robbery in Company' 'summing Up' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'lies' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'criminal Appeal Proviso']

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 and Sentence / Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that statements made by the appellant to police could be used as lies evidencing consciousness of guilt.' 'Whether the directions on lies created a miscarriage of justice requiring the conviction to be quashed.' 'Whether the proviso under s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 should be applied.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction had to be quashed because the jury were directed that they could use as a consciousness of guilt lies the appellant's statements that he had the van all day and did not lend it to anyone, while the Crown also relied on at least one of those same statements as true and essential to proving guilt. This presented the jury with a false and confusing issue, caused the trial to miscarry, and the Court was not persuaded that the proviso under s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 should be applied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside; retrial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Conviction quashed.' 'Retrial ordered.' 'Sentence set aside.' 'The appellant is remanded in his present custody to appear at 10 am in the Bails Court on Monday next.']