Awad v The QueenTambakakis v The QueenCitation:[2022] HCA 36Before:Kiefel CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:09 Nov 2022Case Number:M44/2022, M45/2022Read more

Awad v The QueenTambakakis v The QueenCitation:[2022] HCA 36Before:Kiefel CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:09 Nov 2022Case Number:M44/2022, M45/2022Read more

The trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the credibility of the accused's evidence were prohibited by s 44J of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) and constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice, warranting the appeal being allowed.

Parties
Appellant: Unknown (Accused); Respondent: Unknown (Prosecution)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Jury Directions, Misdirection, Appeal, Fair Trial
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Jury Directions Misdirection Appeal Fair Trial

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown (Accused)

Appellant

Unknown (Prosecution)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the accused's evidence constituted a misdirection prohibited by s 44J of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic)
  2. 2 Whether the misdirection resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the credibility of the accused's evidence were prohibited by s 44J of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) and constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice, warranting the appeal being allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • New trial ordered