REGINA v HANNES [2000] NSWCCA 503

REGINA v HANNES [2000] NSWCCA 503

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge erred in giving a Weissensteiner direction without proper specification and restriction as now required by the High Court in RPS and Weissensteiner, particularly in relation to the inference that 'Hannes was Booth', which was central to all charges. Additional directions risked confusing the jury, particularly the use of 'irrelevant' regarding another person's involvement. Some evidentiary complaints were upheld, especially for a new trial, but most other alleged errors would not, in themselves, have led to a miscarriage of justice. The errors required the convictions be quashed and a new trial ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Conviction and Sentence; Order for New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered; Crown appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['insider Trading' 'handwriting Opinion Evidence' 'adequacy and Fairness of Summing Up' 'non Consensual Verdict' 'weissensteiner Direction' 'hearsay' 'general Availability of Information' 'materiality' 'financial Transaction Reports Act Offences' 'directions to Jury' 'identification Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'corporate/commercial Law'] ['insider Trading' 'handwriting Opinion Evidence' 'adequacy and Fairness of Summing Up' 'non Consensual Verdict' 'weissensteiner Direction' 'hearsay' 'general Availability of Information' 'materiality' 'financial Transaction Reports Act Offences' 'directions to Jury' 'identification Evidence']

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 / Judgment on Appeal From Conviction and Sentence; Order for New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in giving a Weissensteiner direction to the jury' 'Whether there were errors of law or miscarriage of justice in directions given to the jury, including on the involvement of another person' "Adequacy and fairness of the trial judge's summing-up regarding elements of insider trading under the Corporations Law" 'Admissibility and use of handwriting opinion and identification evidence' 'Admissibility of certain documents and hearsay statements under the Evidence Act 1995' "Whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable or non-consensual"]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge erred in giving a Weissensteiner direction without proper specification and restriction as now required by the High Court in RPS and Weissensteiner, particularly in relation to the inference that 'Hannes was Booth', which was central to all charges. Additional directions risked confusing the jury, particularly the use of 'irrelevant' regarding another person's involvement. Some evidentiary complaints were upheld, especially for a new trial, but most other alleged errors would not, in themselves, have led to a miscarriage of justice. The errors required the convictions be quashed and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; new trial ordered; Crown appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['1 Appeal allowed' '2 Convictions quashed' '3 There be a new trial on all counts' '4 Crown appeal dismissed']