Latu v R [2023] NSWCCA 19

Latu v R [2023] NSWCCA 19

No miscarriage of justice was demonstrated because, viewed across the whole trial, there was no real chance or significant risk that the jury would use the relationship evidence in an impermissible tendency way to find the requisite intention for murder. The Crown and trial judge clearly distinguished the eight identified tendency incidents from the balance of the relationship evidence, the trial judge gave tendency directions confined to those incidents, experienced defence counsel did not seek an anti-tendency direction despite opportunities to do so, and rational forensic explanations existed for not seeking such a direction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction; Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time / Court of Criminal Appeal Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Pursuant to R 4.15 of the Supreme Court (criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (nsw)
Outcome
Extension of time granted; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'domestic Violence' 'tendency Evidence' 'relationship Evidence' 'anti Tendency Direction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'leave to Appeal Out of Time']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'appellate Procedure'] ['murder' 'domestic Violence' 'tendency Evidence' 'relationship Evidence' 'anti Tendency Direction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'leave to Appeal Out of Time']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction; Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time / Court of Criminal Appeal Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Pursuant to R 4.15 of the Supreme Court (criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a miscarriage of justice resulted from the absence of directions to the jury with respect to relationship evidence.' 'Whether there was a real chance or significant risk that the jury would use relationship evidence for impermissible tendency reasoning.' 'Whether the applicant should be permitted to raise the complaint on appeal under r 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

No miscarriage of justice was demonstrated because, viewed across the whole trial, there was no real chance or significant risk that the jury would use the relationship evidence in an impermissible tendency way to find the requisite intention for murder. The Crown and trial judge clearly distinguished the eight identified tendency incidents from the balance of the relationship evidence, the trial judge gave tendency directions confined to those incidents, experienced defence counsel did not seek an anti-tendency direction despite opportunities to do so, and rational forensic explanations existed for not seeking such a direction.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Extend time for filing the Notice of Appeal to 8 February 2022.' 'Refuse leave to appeal pursuant to r 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW).']