Geitz v R [2013] NSWCCA 289

Geitz v R [2013] NSWCCA 289

It was not legally permissible for the trial judge to leave to the jury the alternative offence of receiving stolen property, as the appellant was not charged with both larceny and receiving; the offences are mutually exclusive and no statutory or common law basis exists for such an alternative verdict in this context. Upon an independent assessment of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offences charged; identification evidence and possession of stolen items supported the convictions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['break, Enter and Steal' 'receiving Stolen Property' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'aggravated Break and Enter' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law'] ['break, Enter and Steal' 'receiving Stolen Property' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'aggravated Break and Enter' 'jury Directions']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in law in failing to leave to the jury an alternative offence of receiving stolen property' 'Whether jury verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

It was not legally permissible for the trial judge to leave to the jury the alternative offence of receiving stolen property, as the appellant was not charged with both larceny and receiving; the offences are mutually exclusive and no statutory or common law basis exists for such an alternative verdict in this context. Upon an independent assessment of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offences charged; identification evidence and possession of stolen items supported the convictions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal is dismissed.']