Mac v R [2014] NSWCCA 24

Mac v R [2014] NSWCCA 24

The trial judge did not err in refusing separate trials as the evidence for each count was cross-admissible, highly probative and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. Jury directions were adequate to prevent impermissible use of such evidence. There was no misdirection in the summing up concerning the defence case. The sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive nor was any relevant factor overlooked.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
Legal Topics
['attempted Importation of Heroin' 'dealing With Proceeds of Crime' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'joinder and Severance of Counts' 'jury Directions' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'leave to Appeal Sentence']
['criminal Law'] ['attempted Importation of Heroin' 'dealing With Proceeds of Crime' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'joinder and Severance of Counts' 'jury Directions' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'leave to Appeal Sentence']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to order separate trials of the counts' 'Whether evidence was cross-admissible between counts' 'Whether the jury were properly directed concerning the defence case' 'Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in refusing separate trials as the evidence for each count was cross-admissible, highly probative and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. Jury directions were adequate to prevent impermissible use of such evidence. There was no misdirection in the summing up concerning the defence case. The sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive nor was any relevant factor overlooked.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed' 'Leave to appeal against sentence refused']