R v Mahoney [2000] NSWCCA 256

R v Mahoney [2000] NSWCCA 256

The conviction appeal failed because the circumstantial evidence was capable of satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, or someone acting jointly with him, stole the Lancer, and the complaints about the summing up were not objected to at trial, required leave under Rule 4, and concerned only matters of detail or clarification rather than any miscarriage of justice. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed because the concurrent custodial sentences were within the range of a proper sentencing discretion given the serious, sophisticated and continuing rebirthing-related offending.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal against convictions dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['larceny' 'receiving Stolen Property' 'recent Possession' 'summing Up to Jury' 'rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules' 'rebirthing of Motor Vehicles' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['larceny' 'receiving Stolen Property' 'recent Possession' 'summing Up to Jury' 'rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules' 'rebirthing of Motor Vehicles' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence']

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 Convictions and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdict for larceny of the Lancer was unreasonable having regard to the evidence.' "Whether alleged deficiencies in the trial judge's summing up caused a miscarriage of justice, including directions on separate consideration of counts, coincidence evidence, knowledge for receiving, and recent possession." 'Whether leave should be granted under Rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules to raise summing-up complaints not objected to at trial.' 'Whether the sentences imposed were excessive or otherwise affected by error.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction appeal failed because the circumstantial evidence was capable of satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, or someone acting jointly with him, stole the Lancer, and the complaints about the summing up were not objected to at trial, required leave under Rule 4, and concerned only matters of detail or clarification rather than any miscarriage of justice. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed because the concurrent custodial sentences were within the range of a proper sentencing discretion given the serious, sophisticated and continuing rebirthing-related offending.

Court Disposition

Appeal against convictions dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against convictions dismissed.' 'Grant leave to appeal against sentence, but dismiss the appeal.']