Scott Alan May v Regina [2012] NSWCCA 111
The appellant lost a real chance of acquittal due to a misdirection regarding extended joint criminal enterprise, involving references to possible foundational offences not present in the evidence, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice, and the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction beyond reasonable doubt given the unreliability of the key witness.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 31 May 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered
- Legal Topics
- ['appeal' 'conviction' 'evidence' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'jury Directions' 'alternative Verdicts']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence' 'Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on extended joint criminal enterprise' "Whether evidence was capable of independently verifying key witness's account" 'Whether the manslaughter alternative should have been left to the jury']
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant lost a real chance of acquittal due to a misdirection regarding extended joint criminal enterprise, involving references to possible foundational offences not present in the evidence, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice, and the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction beyond reasonable doubt given the unreliability of the key witness.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered
Orders
- ['Appeal against conviction allowed' 'Conviction quashed' 'Verdict of acquittal entered']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment