Bathurst CJ at [1]; Price J at [140]; N Adams J at [416]
Decision:
(1) To the extent necessary, grant the applicant leave to appeal against his conviction.
(2) Appeal allowed.
(3) Quash the conviction and order that there be a new trial.
Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – unreasonable verdict – direct and circumstantial evidence – whether the whole of the evidence gave rise to reasonable explanations other than the applicant’s guilt
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – miscarriage of justice – expert opinion evidence – where expert opinion evidence was mere speculation – where evidence plainly was not an expert opinion – where opinion of the expert did not involve the application of any expert skill and judgment
CRIME – appeals – objection to tender of evidence – where evidence constituted an admission for the purposes of s 87 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – whether tender of evidence was unfair – forensic decision
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – application of proviso – miscarriage of justice – proviso not applied
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Dirani v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Dirani v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 202
Case
[2021] NSWCCA 202
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the appellant, Dirani, appealed against his conviction for various criminal offences, including murder. The appeal was heard by the court, which had to determine whether the verdict was unreasonable and if there was a miscarriage of justice. The case hinged on the reliability and admissibility of various pieces of evidence, including expert opinion evidence and admissions made by the appellant. The court was required to consider whether the whole of the evidence gave rise to reasonable explanations other than the appellant's guilt and whether the evidence was admissible under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
The court examined the nature of the evidence presented in the case, including both direct and circumstantial evidence. It considered whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and whether there were reasonable explanations other than the appellant's guilt that could be drawn from the evidence. The court also assessed the admissibility of expert opinion evidence, determining whether it was reliable and whether it involved the application of expert skill and judgment. Additionally, the court considered whether an admission made by the appellant constituted an admission for the purposes of section 87 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and whether its tender was fair.
The court concluded that the evidence presented in the case, including expert opinion evidence, was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that there were no reasonable explanations other than the appellant's guilt that could be drawn from the evidence. The court also determined that the expert opinion evidence was not speculative and involved the application of expert skill and judgment. Furthermore, the court held that the admission made by the appellant was an admission for the purposes of section 87 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and that its tender was fair. The court ultimately rejected the appeal against conviction, finding that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the proviso was not applicable.