Sheen v R [2011] NSWCCA 259

Sheen v R [2011] NSWCCA 259

There was no practical injustice or miscarriage of justice in leaving the alternative verdict; directions to the jury were adequate; verdicts were logically defensible and reasonable; the sentence for Count 4 required reconsideration due to the High Court's ruling in Muldrock v The Queen; partial allowance of sentence appeal warranted; conviction appeal dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Principal Judgment; Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'break, Enter and Steal' 'specially Aggravated Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'standard Non Parole Period Offences' 'directions to Jury' 'consistency of Verdicts' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing Principles']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'break, Enter and Steal' 'specially Aggravated Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence' 'standard Non Parole Period Offences' 'directions to Jury' 'consistency of Verdicts' 'manifest Excess' 'sentencing Principles']

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 / Principal Judgment; Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether trial Judge erred in failing to give a 'Murray' type direction" 'Adequacy of directions concerning drawing of inferences' 'Directions to the jury regarding self-defence' 'Directions on alternative verdict under s.115A(1) Crimes Act 1900' 'Whether verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable' 'Whether sentences imposed were unduly harsh and severe' 'Approach to sentencing for standard non-parole period offence after Muldrock v The Queen']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no practical injustice or miscarriage of justice in leaving the alternative verdict; directions to the jury were adequate; verdicts were logically defensible and reasonable; the sentence for Count 4 required reconsideration due to the High Court's ruling in Muldrock v The Queen; partial allowance of sentence appeal warranted; conviction appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed' 'Leave granted to appeal against sentence and allow the sentence appeal in part' 'Sentence for break, enter and steal on 19 August 2008 (Count 2, s.112(1) Crimes Act 1900) confirmed: imprisonment, non-parole period of three years (1 Sep 2008 - 31 Aug 2011), balance of term one...