Legal Research
Cases
Director of Public Prosecutions v Charlton

Director of Public Prosecutions v Charlton

Case [2023] VSC 671

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Charlton [2023] VSC 671
Case: [2023] VSC 671
Decision Date: 14 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

Director of Public Prosecutions v Charlton [2023] VSC 671

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Moreno v The King [2023] VSCA 98
Citation 1 (Para 7)

…tial evidence, the evidence may strengthen the inference when considered in conjunction with other evidence. [8]Ibid, 312 [39]. [9] Moreno v The King [2023] VSCA 98, [53], [55]-[56] (Priest AP, Niall and Kaye JJA), citing IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300, 317 [58] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ).…
Wade (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2019] VSCA 168
Citation 2 (Para 3)

…vant to a fact in issue and are therefore inadmissible.[72] [71] Longman v R (1989) 168 CLR 79, 107.8 (McHugh J). See also Wade v The Queen [2019] VSCA 168, [37]-[38] (Priest, T Forrest and Weinberg JJA) in which the appropriateness of unreliability directions made pursuant to Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), s 32…
IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14
Citation 3 (Para 7)

…hat it could not be accepted by any rational jury, then it would not pass the test of relevance.[9] [6] Evidence Act , ss 55, 56. [7] IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300, 313-314 [44]-[45] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ). See at 313-314 [45]: the extent of the probative value is the extent to which the evidence…
Peterson (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2014] VSCA 111
Citation 4 (Para 11)

…A Crim R 506, 598 [230]-[231] (Dowd J, dissenting in part) for a discussion of the differing criteria under ss 135 and 137. [13] Peterson v The Queen [2014] VSCA 111, [55]-[56] (Priest and Beach JJA).…
Conway v R [2013] NZCA 438
Citation 5 (Para 8)

…: see Cvetkovic v R [2010] NSWCCA 329, [343] (Campbell JA, with whom Simpson and Whealy JJ relevantly agreed); Conway v The Queen (2000) 98 FCR 204, 244 -246, [149]-[157] (Miles, von Doussa and Weinberg JJ). [40]See pars 113–116 above.…
Cvetkovic v R [2010] NSWCCA 329
Citation 6 (Para 8)

…ction 65(2) that it be “given by a person who saw, heard or otherwise perceived the representation being made”: see Cvetkovic v R [2010] NSWCCA 329, [343] (Campbell JA, with whom Simpson and Whealy JJ relevantly agreed); Conway v The Queen (2000) 98 FCR 204, 244 -246, [149]-[157] (Miles, von Doussa and Weinberg JJ).…
R v SJRC [2007] NSWCCA 142
Citation 7 (Para 3)

…ng statements such as these run the risk that the jury may take that path of reasoning regardless of any direction that might be given. [25] R v SJRC [2007] NSWCCA 142, [38]-[39] (James J, with whom Rothman and Harrison JJ agreed).…
R v Cuenco [2007] VSCA 41
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…on of events from a detailed account that he provides may provide a basis for drawing the inference of a consciousness of guilt”.[65] [64](2007) 16 VR 118. [65]Ibid, 124 [20] (Nettle JA with whom Maxwell P and Redlich JA agreed).…
R v Cupid [2004] VSCA 183
Citation 9 (Para 4)

…questioning. [67] Evidence Act, s 89; R v Cuenco (2007) 16 VR 118, 124 [20] (Nettle JA with whom Maxwell P and Redlich JA agreed). [68]Ibid. [69](2004) 11 VR 1, 10-12 [29]-[34] (Nettle JA with whom Winneke P and Charles JA relevantly agreed).…
Conway v The Queen [2002] HCA 2
Citation 10 (Para 8)

…ntation being made”: see Cvetkovic v R [2010] NSWCCA 329, [343] (Campbell JA, with whom Simpson and Whealy JJ relevantly agreed); Conway v The Queen (2000) 98 FCR 204, 244 -246, [149]-[157] (Miles, von Doussa and Weinberg JJ). [40]See pars 113–116 above.…
R v Clark [2001] NSWSC 488
Citation 11 (Para 11)

…ot a direction to the jury could address the relevant prejudice arising from any frailties of the evidence and the criticisms made of it.[13] [12]See R v Clark (2001) 123 A Crim R 506, 598 [230]-[231] (Dowd J, dissenting in part) for a discussion of the differing criteria under ss 135 and 137. [13] Peterson v The Q…
R v Serratore [2000] NSWSC 696
Citation 12 (Para 1)

…tionship in question is admissible, but only that from which a relevant inference may be logically and reasonably drawn.[3] [1] R v Serratore (1999) 48 NSWLR 101, 106 [17] (Dunford J, with whom Greg James J and Smart A-J relevantly agreed) and the cases there cited. [2] R v Clark (2001) 123 A Crim R 506, 560-561 [95]-…
Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63
Citation 13

…dopted by the prosecution: R v Cuenco (2007) 16 VR 118, 123-124 [16]-[18] (Nettle JA, with whom Maxwell P and Redlich JA agreed); Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193.…
Longman v The Queen [1989] HCA 60
Citation 14 (Para 3)

…submitted Charlton’s statements to Butler in 2020 are not relevant to a fact in issue and are therefore inadmissible.[72] [71] Longman v R (1989) 168 CLR 79, 107.8 (McHugh J). See also Wade v The Queen [2019] VSCA 168, [37]-[38] (Priest, T Forrest and Weinberg JJA) in which the appropriateness of unreliability dire…
Wilson v the Queen [1970] HCA 17
Citation 15 (Para 1)

…o the introduction of s 66A of the uniform evidence law, however, until the 2008 amendments, s 72 was its predecessor. [3] Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334, 339.6 (Barwick CJ).…
DPP v Paulino (Ruling No 1) [2017] VSC 343
Citation 16 (Para 2)

…r indirectly) the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue.[24] [24] Director of Public Prosecutions v Paulino (Ruling No 1) [2017] VSC 343, [54]-[57] (Bell J), and the cases there cited.…

AI Chat coming soon