
Criminal judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The court decided to uphold the claim of client legal privilege for documents produced under subpoena. These documents were notes of conferences between counsel and/or solicitors and witnesses. The court rejected the application to inspect the documents, citing client legal privilege.
The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed an appeal against sentence, upholding the severity of the sentence for sexual assault on a minor, considering exceptional mitigating factors.
The court allowed the claimant to cross-examine a witness about specific documents that were unfavorable to the claimant. This decision was made under the Evidence Act 1995, allowing the claimant to question the witness further.
In this case, the court decided that statements made shortly after an event and under immediate pressure are unlikely to be fabricated and can be used as evidence in criminal trials under the Evidence Act 1995.
In this case, the Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed a sentence for sexual offences against siblings. The court found the original sentence excessive and imposed a new non-parole period with conditions for parole, acknowledging the defendant's rehabilitation efforts and the need for ongoing supervision.
The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal reduced a three-year limiting term to two years for an intellectually disabled individual convicted of aggravated sexual assault. The court found the original sentence to be too harsh, taking into account the defendant's intellectual disability and other mitigating factors.
The defendant was found guilty of being involved in the fraudulent alteration of company records. The court sentenced the defendant to periodic detention for a term of 12 months.
A person was sentenced to six years in prison after being caught smuggling heroin into Australia. The court took into account the individual's history of heroin use and financial troubles but still imposed a harsh sentence due to the severity of the crime.
The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal reduced the claimant's sentence from 13 years to 10 years, adjusting the non-parole periods. The court found the original sentence excessive and adjusted it to be fairer.
In this case, the court found the claimant guilty of contempt of court for attempting to influence a witness in a court proceeding. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent's legal costs on an indemnity basis, but was not committed to prison.
The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal found that the original sentence for money laundering and drug possession was too lenient. The court highlighted that the sentencing judge did not adequately reflect the severity of the crimes and overvalued certain mitigating factors.
In this case, the court denied access to confidential documents related to national security concerns. The decision was made to protect national security and maintain confidentiality.