R v GREY [2002] NSWCCA 144
Because the co-accused husband's successful High Court appeal showed that the appellant's conviction on count 15 would also have been quashed, and because the Director did not propose to retry the husband, the appeal should be allowed, the conviction quashed, and a verdict of not guilty substituted rather than ordering a new trial.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 April 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed. Verdict of not guilty substituted.
- Legal Topics
- ['appeal Against Conviction' 'co Accused Appeal' 'disposal of Stolen Motor Vehicle' 'nolle Prosequi' 'substituted Verdict of Not Guilty']
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 to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the appellant's conviction on count 15 should be quashed in light of the successful High Court appeal by her co-accused husband." 'Whether a new trial should be ordered where the Director of Public Prosecutions did not propose to retry the co-accused.']
Ratio Decidendi
Because the co-accused husband's successful High Court appeal showed that the appellant's conviction on count 15 would also have been quashed, and because the Director did not propose to retry the husband, the appeal should be allowed, the conviction quashed, and a verdict of not guilty substituted rather than ordering a new trial.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed. Verdict of not guilty substituted.
Orders
- ['Appeal allowed.' 'Conviction on count 15 quashed.' 'Verdict of not guilty substituted.']
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