Lustig v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 143

Lustig v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 143

The conviction was quashed because there was a real risk the jury could have convicted the appellant based on conduct (such as addressing the passengers) that was not capable, as a matter of law, of constituting interference with the crew member in the performance of his duties. The jury directions did not make it clear that only conduct that actually interfered supported conviction, which amounted to a significant miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction in District Court (jury Conviction)
Outcome
Conviction quashed. New trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['interference With Aircraft Crew' 'jury Directions' 'misdirection' 'course of Conduct' 'interpretation of Interference' 'sections 24(1)(a) Civil Aviation Act 1988']
['criminal Law' 'aviation Law'] ['interference With Aircraft Crew' 'jury Directions' 'misdirection' 'course of Conduct' 'interpretation of Interference' 'sections 24(1)(a) Civil Aviation Act 1988']

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 From Conviction in District Court (jury Conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's conduct constituted an act interfering with a crew member within the meaning of s 24(1)(a) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth)" "Whether the jury was properly directed regarding interference with a crew member versus interference with the performance of a crew member's duties" 'Whether specific acts (moving towards flight deck, addressing passengers, refusing to leave) could amount to interference' 'Whether reliance on a course of conduct created a risk of miscarriage of justice by lack of clear jury directions']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was quashed because there was a real risk the jury could have convicted the appellant based on conduct (such as addressing the passengers) that was not capable, as a matter of law, of constituting interference with the crew member in the performance of his duties. The jury directions did not make it clear that only conduct that actually interfered supported conviction, which amounted to a significant miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Conviction quashed. New trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Conviction quashed.' 'New trial ordered.']