KUTSCHERA v R [2010] NSWCCA 150

KUTSCHERA v R [2010] NSWCCA 150

Her Honour was entitled to conclude that Mr Newbold was not someone who might reasonably be supposed to have been criminally concerned in the events giving rise to the proceedings and the warning given to the jury concerning his evidence was adequate. The sole ground of appeal fails, and even if a stronger warning should have been given, no miscarriage of justice occurred.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Kutschera; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jury Directions, Unreliable Evidence, Accomplice Testimony, Evidence Act S165
Criminal Law Jury Directions Unreliable Evidence Accomplice Testimony Evidence Act S165

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Kutschera

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in the directions given to the jury regarding the evidence of Adam Newbold
  2. 2 Adequacy of warnings about unreliable evidence under s165 of the Evidence Act
  3. 3 Whether Mr Newbold might reasonably be supposed to have been criminally concerned in the events giving rise to the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Her Honour was entitled to conclude that Mr Newbold was not someone who might reasonably be supposed to have been criminally concerned in the events giving rise to the proceedings and the warning given to the jury concerning his evidence was adequate. The sole ground of appeal fails, and even if a stronger warning should have been given, no miscarriage of justice occurred.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed