BERRY v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH); PHAPAKDY v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH) [2008] NSWCCA 20

BERRY v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH); PHAPAKDY v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH) [2008] NSWCCA 20

The circumstances of the appellants Berry and Phapakdy did not involve any different considerations from those of Mr Pellegrino; thus, their appeals were dismissed for the reasons given in Pellegrino.

Parties
Appellant: Simon Berry; Appellant: Bounthavy Phapakdy; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From District Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Permanent Stay of Proceedings, Accessorial Liability
Criminal Law Permanent Stay of Proceedings Accessorial Liability

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Berry

Appellant

Bounthavy Phapakdy

Appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Berry and Phapakdy are entitled to a permanent stay of proceedings as accessories in relation to count 1 of the indictment

Ratio Decidendi

The circumstances of the appellants Berry and Phapakdy did not involve any different considerations from those of Mr Pellegrino; thus, their appeals were dismissed for the reasons given in Pellegrino.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed for the reasons given in Pellegrino v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2008] NSWCCA 17.