Hamide v R [2019] NSWCCA 219

Hamide v R [2019] NSWCCA 219

The appeal was dismissed because, viewed in the context of the whole trial, not all matters complained of were irregularities or materially prejudicial; to the extent prejudicial evidence emerged, it was not deliberately elicited by the Crown, was not relied on in the Crown address, and was adequately addressed by directions focusing the jury on the specific charged allegations. The Court was satisfied that the appellant received a fair trial and that the refusals to discharge the jury did not occasion a miscarriage or substantial miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Convictions After Jury Trial
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'discharge of Jury' 'irregularities in Evidence' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'standard of Appellate Review']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'appeals'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'discharge of Jury' 'irregularities in Evidence' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'standard of Appellate Review']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal From District Court Convictions After Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether irregularities in the evidence at the appellant's trial were prejudicial to his interests and caused a substantial miscarriage of justice." "Whether the trial judge's refusals to discharge the jury compromised the fairness of the trial." 'Whether directions given during the trial and in the summing up cured any prejudice arising from the impugned evidence.' 'Whether appellate review of a refusal to discharge a jury on a conviction appeal requires error in the House v The King sense or application of the Crofts principles.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, viewed in the context of the whole trial, not all matters complained of were irregularities or materially prejudicial; to the extent prejudicial evidence emerged, it was not deliberately elicited by the Crown, was not relied on in the Crown address, and was adequately addressed by directions focusing the jury on the specific charged allegations. The Court was satisfied that the appellant received a fair trial and that the refusals to discharge the jury did not occasion a miscarriage or substantial miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']