Legal Research
Cases
Director of Public Prosecutions v Henshaw

Director of Public Prosecutions v Henshaw

Case [2021] VCC 1578

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 Henshaw [2021] VCC 1578
Case: [2021] VCC 1578
Decision Date: 28 May 2021

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 Henshaw [2021] VCC 1578

Most Recent Citation

Director of Public Prosecutions v Henshaw (a pseudonym) [2021] VCC 1657

Cases Citing This Decision

Henshaw (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 356
Citation 1

…DPP v Henshaw (a pseudonym) [2021] VCC 1578 (Judge M Sexton) (Conviction)…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Henshaw (a pseudonym) [2021] VCC 1657
Citation 2

…a sentence of imprisonment must be imposed. [3] A pseudonym 4I sentenced you on the basis of the findings I made, as set out in my judgement[4]. [4] [2021] VCC 1578 5In brief, I found that on evening of 28 June 2017 you were the aggressor in a physical altercation which had been going on for hours with your adult…

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Charlie Thomas Star v The Queen [2020] VSCA 331
Citation 1 (Para 12)

…ntionally performed is an act of sexual penetration as the law defines it, that will be sufficient for this element to be proved.[120] [120] R v Star [2020] VSCA 331, [35] – [43]…
R v Anderson [2017] SASCFC 125
Citation 2 (Para 11)

…I may accept or reject. It is for the fact finder to decide whether an opinion is credible and what weight it should be given.[23] [23] R v Anderson (2000) 1 VR 1…
Jackson v Lithgow City Council [2008] NSWCA 312
Citation 3 (Para 9)

…Hearsay evidence of an opinion is itself opinion evidence.[19] [19] Jackson v Lithgow City Council [2008] NSWCA 312; R v Whyte [2006] NSWCCA 75. See also Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich (2005) ALR 320…
R v Whyte [2006] NSWCCA 75
Citation 4 (Para 9)

…Hearsay evidence of an opinion is itself opinion evidence.[19] [19] Jackson v Lithgow City Council [2008] NSWCA 312; R v Whyte [2006] NSWCCA 75. See also Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich (2005) ALR 320…
R v Cavkic [2005] VSCA 182
Citation 5 (Para 9)

…which essentially rests upon a ‘pseudo mathematical assessment of probabilities’.[114] [113] T118 L23-T119 L1 [114] R v Cavkic (2005) 12 VR 136; [2005] VSCA 182…
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich [2005] NSWCA 152
Citation 6

…008) 167 FCR 84, Jackson v Lithgow City Council [2008] NSWCA 312, R v Whyte [2006] NSWCCA 75, Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich (2005) 216 ALR 320, R v Cavkic (2000) 12 VR 136; [2005] VSCA 182, R v Star [2020] VSCA 331…
Bodney v Bennell [2008] FCAFC 63
Citation 7 (Para 2)

…inions will be based on out-of-court representations, admissible to explain the assumptions on which an opinion is based[15]. [15] Bodney v Bennell (2008) 167 FCR 84, [91]-[93]…

AI Chat coming soon