
Criminal judgments from Australian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales extended the forensic patient status of an individual for 2.5 years. The decision was based on the individual posing an unacceptable risk to public safety and the inability to manage this risk through less restrictive measures.
The Court of Criminal Appeal overturned the convictions for firearms offences and the overall punishment because there wasn't enough proof that the firearms were 'prohibited firearms' as defined by the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW).
The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal reduced the sentence for the applicant due to mitigating factors such as childhood deprivation and mental health issues, emphasising the significance of individual circumstances in sentencing decisions.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales granted restraining orders against seized cash linked to suspected proceeds of crime. The court found reasonable grounds for suspicion based on the defendant's suspicious behavior and the presence of large amounts of cash.
In a serious criminal case, the Supreme Court of NSW allowed the defendant to appear via audio visual link (AVL) during his trial due to health concerns. The court took into account the defendant's age, diabetes, and past experiences of motion sickness, ensuring fair trial conditions and efficient use of resources.
A 23-year-old man with a history of drug abuse and dishonesty was sentenced to 3 years in prison with an 18-month non-parole period. The court took into account his prior convictions and the need for general deterrence.
In this case, the District Court of New South Wales sentenced a person to 24 years in prison for large-scale drug trafficking and manufacturing operations involving over 292 kilograms of Methylamphetamine.
The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed an appeal challenging the admissibility of an interpreter's evidence due to her lack of compliance with the expert witness code of conduct. The court ruled that although the interpreter did not comply with the code of conduct, her evidence was still admissible if it was reliable and relevant to the case.
During a murder trial, a certificate was expanded to protect a witness from self-incrimination. The court allowed the certificate to cover a wide range of potential incriminating evidence.