
Criminal judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The court denied a request to dismiss a case against a defendant due to media coverage of bikie violence. The judge found that the coverage was not directly linked to the defendant and that appropriate jury instructions could mitigate any potential prejudice.
The defendant was sentenced to six years in prison for the manslaughter of his father. The court took into account the defendant's mental health issues, including schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress disorder, reducing the non-parole period to three years.
The Court dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence, affirming the trial judge's findings and sentence in a case involving sexual offenses. The Court held that while the disposal of evidence can suggest consciousness of guilt, it does not necessarily constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice.
In a judge-alone trial, the accused was found guilty of breaking and entering and stealing property. The court relied on fingerprints and circumstantial evidence to establish the accused's involvement in a joint criminal enterprise.
In a contempt case, the Supreme Court of NSW refused an adjournment application from a self-represented litigant seeking more time to pursue appeals and provide citations. The litigant claimed they needed more time due to recent changes in their financial circumstances. However, the court determined that the litigant had previously had sufficient opportunities to pursue these appeals and provide citations.
The New South Wales Crime Commission successfully obtained a restraining order against a suspect accused of drug trafficking. The court agreed to the order after reviewing evidence presented by the commission, including seized drugs and cash.
In a domestic violence case, the Supreme Court of NSW allowed evidence showing the defendant's history of violent and controlling behavior towards former domestic partners. The court determined that this evidence was important enough to be considered by the jury, despite potential negative effects on the defendant.