Hill v R [2017] NSWCCA 136

Hill v R [2017] NSWCCA 136

No miscarriage of justice was demonstrated. The trial judge did not err in permitting the amendments to the indictment; the indictment disclosed offences known to law; the legal elements did not require payment to a person; jury directions were sufficient; there was no reliance on tendency evidence; no Murray direction was required as the prosecution relied on more than one witness and documentary evidence; the summing-up, though brief, covered required matters; the jury's verdicts were open on the evidence; and the sentencing judge considered delay and other factors appropriately.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['fraudulent Misappropriation' 'amendment of Indictment' 'jury Directions' 'summation' 'delay as Sentencing Factor' 'disclosure Obligations']
['criminal Law'] ['fraudulent Misappropriation' 'amendment of Indictment' 'jury Directions' 'summation' 'delay as Sentencing Factor' 'disclosure Obligations']

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 Against Conviction and Sentence From the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in permitting the amendment of the indictment' 'Whether the indictment disclosed offences known to law under s. 178A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)' 'Whether sufficient directions were given to the jury on elements of the offence, tendency evidence, and Murray direction' 'Whether the verdicts on particular counts were unsafe and unsatisfactory' 'Whether delay was suitably treated as a mitigating factor in sentencing']

Ratio Decidendi

No miscarriage of justice was demonstrated. The trial judge did not err in permitting the amendments to the indictment; the indictment disclosed offences known to law; the legal elements did not require payment to a person; jury directions were sufficient; there was no reliance on tendency evidence; no Murray direction was required as the prosecution relied on more than one witness and documentary evidence; the summing-up, though brief, covered required matters; the jury's verdicts were open on the evidence; and the sentencing judge considered delay and other factors appropriately.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal against conviction is dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.']