R v Giri [2001] NSWCCA 197

R v Giri [2001] NSWCCA 197

The trial judge's comments about the appellant's failure to give evidence contravened s 20(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 as explained in RPS v R and Azzopardi v R, and this was not a case for a Weissensteiner comment. By majority, however, the proviso in s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 applied because there was no fundamental error and, having regard to the strength of the Crown case on joint criminal enterprise, conviction was inevitable. The remaining complaints about directions on manslaughter, self-defence and witness unreliability were rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Supreme Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['right to Silence' 'failure of Accused to Give Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'murder' 'manslaughter' 'self Defence' 'unreliable Evidence Warnings' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'criminal Appeal Proviso']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['right to Silence' 'failure of Accused to Give Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'murder' 'manslaughter' 'self Defence' 'unreliable Evidence Warnings' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' '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 / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Supreme Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury about the use it could make of the appellant's failure to give evidence at trial." "Whether any error concerning the appellant's failure to give evidence caused a substantial miscarriage of justice or whether the proviso in s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 applied." "Whether the trial judge's directions on manslaughter were erroneous or inadequate." "Whether the trial judge's directions on self-defence were erroneous." 'Whether the trial judge gave adequate warnings about the alleged unreliability of witnesses Mahbubur, Taria and Diolosa.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's comments about the appellant's failure to give evidence contravened s 20(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 as explained in RPS v R and Azzopardi v R, and this was not a case for a Weissensteiner comment. By majority, however, the proviso in s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 applied because there was no fundamental error and, having regard to the strength of the Crown case on joint criminal enterprise, conviction was inevitable. The remaining complaints about directions on manslaughter, self-defence and witness unreliability were rejected.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal against conviction is dismissed.']