Pashley v R [2019] NSWCCA 119

Pashley v R [2019] NSWCCA 119

The directions on circumstantial evidence given by the trial judge were substantively correct and sufficient; the Shepherd direction was not required for identification of the vehicle as it was not an indispensable intermediate step; the verdicts of guilty were reasonably open to the jury on the evidence; the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Lawrence Pashley; Respondent: Regina (Crown)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment After Conviction and Sentence in District Court
Outcome
Conviction appeal dismissed; leave to appeal sentence refused.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Circumstantial Evidence, Shepherd Direction, Parity in Sentencing
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence Circumstantial Evidence Shepherd Direction Parity in Sentencing

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence Pashley

Appellant

Regina (Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment After Conviction and Sentence in District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury regarding use of circumstantial evidence
  2. 2 Whether a Shepherd direction was required regarding identification of vehicle on CCTV footage
  3. 3 Whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The directions on circumstantial evidence given by the trial judge were substantively correct and sufficient; the Shepherd direction was not required for identification of the vehicle as it was not an indispensable intermediate step; the verdicts of guilty were reasonably open to the jury on the evidence; the sentence imposed was within the permissible range given the planning, seriousness, and consequences of the kidnapping; there was no impermissible disparity compared to the co-offender's sentence.

Court Disposition

Conviction appeal dismissed; leave to appeal sentence refused.

Orders

  • Leave granted to raise ground 3 in the appeal against conviction.
  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.