Legal Research
Cases
Fischetti v The Queen

Fischetti v The Queen

Case [2019] ACTCA 2 13 February 2019

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Fischetti v The Queen
Citation:	[2019] ACTCA 2
Hearing Date:	16 August 2018
DecisionDate:	13 February 2019
Before:	Burns, Mossop and Bromwich JJ
Decision:	See [68] and [97]
Catchwords:	APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction and sentence appeal from ACT Supreme Court – whether primary judge erred in dismissing applications by accused to discharge the jury – whether primary judge erred in admitting tendency evidence and fresh evidence – whether sentence too severe – whether primary judge erred in considering totality – held: appeals dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 326, 332, 347 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 97, 101, 101(2)
Cases Cited:	Barber v R; Zraika v R [2016] NSWCCA 125 Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; 186 CLR 427 Curran v R [2017] NSWCCA 123 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197 Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Hughes v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 2 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300 Khoo v R [2013] NSWCCA 323; 237 A Crim R 221 Le Clair v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Medich (No 6) v R [2016] NSWSC 1001 Monfries v R [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80; 68 MVR 385 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 R v Boland [1974] VR 849 R v Finnie [2002] NSW CCA 533 R v Fischetti (No 1) [2016] ACTSC 104 R v Fischetti (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 292 R v Fischetti (No 5) [2016] ACTSC 213 R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746 R v Mears (1991) 53 A Crim R 141 R v Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450; 151 A Crim R 376 R v SK; SK v R [2011] NSWCCA 292 R v Spiteri [2004] NSWCCA 321; 61 NSWLR 369 R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49 R v Reardon (No 2) [2004] NSWCCA 197; 60 NSWLR 454 R v Murtaza [2001] NSWCCA 336 Singh v R [2015] ACTCA 65 Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260; 262 ALR 91 Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465 Vojneski v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 57; 262 A Crim R 370
Parties:	Frank John Fischetti (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented (Appellant) Ms M Jones (Respondent)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Numbers:	ACTCA 24 of 2016 ACTCA 61 of 2016
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court Before: Robinson AJ Date of Decision: 14 December 2016 Case Title: R v Fischetti [No 5] Citation: [2016] ACTSC 213

Grounds of appeal

[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 Fischetti v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Fischetti v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 2
Case: [2019] ACTCA 2
Decision Date: 13 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals concerned a conviction and sentence handed down by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant, Fischetti, sought to appeal against both his conviction and the sentence imposed.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in dismissing applications made by the appellant to discharge the jury, whether the admission of tendency evidence and fresh evidence was lawful, and whether the sentence imposed was too severe, including considerations of the totality principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. It found no error in the primary judge's decisions regarding the jury discharge, the admission of evidence, or the sentencing. The Court applied established principles of criminal law and evidence, including those relating to the admissibility of tendency evidence and the proper application of the totality principle in sentencing. The specific reasons for these findings are detailed within the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [68] and [97]

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

Fischetti v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 2

Most Recent Citation

Mehl v Federal Republic of Germany [2009] FCA 36

Cases Citing This Decision

R v Aguer [2023] ACTSC 48
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…of alleged frauds for both tendency and coincidence purposes. Two of those judgments are worth citing without further comment. Fischetti v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 2, a judgment of the ACT Court of Appeal delivered on 13 February 2019, and the New South Wales judgment to which I referred to in the course of discus…
Featherstone v The Queen; Bloxsome v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 33
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…A similar complaint was made in Fischetti v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 2 ( Fischetti ). In that case, the Crown relied on evidence (the existence and relevance of which emerged during the trial) that resulted in Mr Fischetti’s counsel seeking the discharge of the jury. The trial judge refused the application. On the…
R v Watson (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 252
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…CT) ( Evidence Act (ACT)). The operation of these principles as articulated in the relevant authorities was set out recently in Fischetti v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 2 at [56]-[64] and I adopt those principles.…
Mehl v Federal Republic of Germany [2009] FCA 36
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…per O’Loughlin J (‘a machine cannot be the subject of deception’), cited with approval R v Baxter [1988] 1 Qd R 537, 539 per Connolly J and R v Fischetti (2003) 192 FLR 119, 124 at [22] per Gray J. In this context, the respondent may not place reliance upon the extended definition of deception in s 178BA(2)(b) of the C…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Nguyen v The Queen [2020] HCA 23
Citation 1 (Para 61)

…66 CLR 59, 62-63, Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610, 623-624 and the recent observations in the case of Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17; 256 CLR 656 at [61]-[65] in the process of both structuring the sentences and then reviewing the overall result to determine whether that result adequately refle…
Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2
Citation 2

…R [2015] NSWCCA 197 Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Hughes v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 2 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300 Khoo v R [2013] NSWCCA 323; 237 A Crim R 221 Le Clair v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19 Lowndes v The Queen [199…
Stevens v R [2017] NSWCCA 216
Citation 3

…] NSWCCA 49 R v Reardon (No 2) [2004] NSWCCA 197; 60 NSWLR 454 R v Murtaza [2001] NSWCCA 336 Singh v R [2015] ACTCA 65 Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260; 262 ALR 91 Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465 Vojneski v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 57; 262 A Crim R 370…
Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20
Citation 4

…lton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197 Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Hughes v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 2 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300 Khoo v R [2013] NSWCCA 323; 237 A Crim R 221 Le Clair v Th…
Curran v R [2017] NSWCCA 123
Citation 5

…Barber v R; Zraika v R [2016] NSWCCA 125 Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; 186 CLR 427 Curran v R [2017] NSWCCA 123 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197 Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Hughes v The Queen [20…
Le Clair v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19
Citation 6

…R 187 Hughes v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 2 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300 Khoo v R [2013] NSWCCA 323; 237 A Crim R 221 Le Clair v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Medich (No 6) v R [2016] NSWSC 1001 Monfries v R [201…
R v Fischetti (No 5) [2016] ACTSC 213
Citation 7

…v Boland [1974] VR 849 R v Finnie [2002] NSW CCA 533 R v Fischetti (No 1) [2016] ACTSC 104 R v Fischetti (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 292 R v Fischetti (No 5) [2016] ACTSC 213 R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746 R v Mears (1991) 53 A Crim R 141 R v Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450; 151 A Crim R 376 R v…
Vojneski v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 57
Citation 8

…[2001] NSWCCA 336 Singh v R [2015] ACTCA 65 Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260; 262 ALR 91 Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465 Vojneski v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 57; 262 A Crim R 370…
Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53
Citation 9 (Para 70)

…e totality principle in a particular sentencing exercise: R v TW [2011] ACTCA 25; 6 ACTLR 18 per Penfold J at [83], applied in Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53 at [70]. See also Hall and Barker at [42], where the Court referred to totality as “part of the instinctive synthesis involved in the sentencing proc…
R v Fischetti (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 292
Citation 10

…Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 R v Boland [1974] VR 849 R v Finnie [2002] NSW CCA 533 R v Fischetti (No 1) [2016] ACTSC 104 R v Fischetti (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 292 R v Fischetti (No 5) [2016] ACTSC 213 R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746 R v Mears (1991) 53 A Crim R 141 R v Mungomery [2…
R v Medich (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 1001
Citation 11

…e Clair v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Medich (No 6) v R [2016] NSWSC 1001 Monfries v R [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80; 68 MVR 385 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 R v Boland [1974] VR 849 R v Finnie [2002] NSW CCA 533 R…
Barber v R; Zraika v R [2016] NSWCCA 125
Citation 12

…Barber v R; Zraika v R [2016] NSWCCA 125 Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; 186 CLR 427 Curran v R [2017] NSWCCA 123 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197 Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Hughes v The Queen [20…
Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105
Citation 13

…s v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; 186 CLR 427 Curran v R [2017] NSWCCA 123 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197 Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Hughes v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 2 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 25…
R v Fischetti (No. 1) [2016] ACTSC 104
Citation 14

…ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80; 68 MVR 385 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 R v Boland [1974] VR 849 R v Finnie [2002] NSW CCA 533 R v Fischetti (No 1) [2016] ACTSC 104 R v Fischetti (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 292 R v Fischetti (No 5) [2016] ACTSC 213 R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746 R v Mears (…
Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17
Citation 15 (Para 61)

…1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59, 62-63, Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610, 623-624 and the recent observations in the case of Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17; 256 CLR 656 at [61]-[65] in the process of both structuring the sentences and then reviewing the overall result to determine whether that result ade…
IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14
Citation 16

…[2016] NSWCCA 105 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Hughes v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 2 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300 Khoo v R [2013] NSWCCA 323; 237 A Crim R 221 Le Clair v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665 Markari…
Singh v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 65
Citation 17

…d Bartley (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49 R v Reardon (No 2) [2004] NSWCCA 197; 60 NSWLR 454 R v Murtaza [2001] NSWCCA 336 Singh v R [2015] ACTCA 65 Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260; 262 ALR 91 Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465 Vojneski v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 57; 262 A Crim R 370…
Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48
Citation 18

…Barber v R; Zraika v R [2016] NSWCCA 125 Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; 186 CLR 427 Curran v R [2017] NSWCCA 123 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197 Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Hughes v The Queen […
De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197
Citation 19

…ka v R [2016] NSWCCA 125 Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; 186 CLR 427 Curran v R [2017] NSWCCA 123 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197 Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Hughes v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 2 IMM…
R v Costa (No 1) [2015] ACTSC 63
Citation 20 (Para 31)

…evidence, where the risk cannot be cured by direction: Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593 at [51] per McHugh J, Lam at [31]-[32], R v Costa (No 1) [2015] ACTSC 63 at [44]. As noted above, tendency evidence usually raises disreputable conduct, ie contains inherent prejudice. But in many cases this prejudicial ef…
Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46
Citation 21

…A 19 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Medich (No 6) v R [2016] NSWSC 1001 Monfries v R [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80; 68 MVR 385 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 R v Boland [1974] VR 849 R v Finnie [2002] NSW CCA 533 R v Fischetti (No 1) [2016] AC…
Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2
Citation 22

…neous in point of principle because it has not been imposed according to the rules of reason or justice: Barbaro v The Queen ; Zirilli v The Queen [[2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58;] 305 ALR 323 at [61]. ·In approaching the task of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable or plainly unjust, the Court does so with…
Khoo v R [2013] NSWCCA 323
Citation 23

…1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Hughes v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 2 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300 Khoo v R [2013] NSWCCA 323; 237 A Crim R 221 Le Clair v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 35…
Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26
Citation 24 (Para 61)

…mposed a different sentence: Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [28]; R v Abbott (2007) 170 A Crim R 306 at 309 [14]; Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26 at [61]. In Monfries , this Court stated (at [22]-[23]): Whether a sentence is “manifestly excessive” must be considered in the context of the legisl…
DSJ v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 9
Citation 25

…be “substantial” but does need to be “important” or “of consequence” [ R v Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 457 at 459; DSJ v The Queen (2012) 84 NSWLR 758 at 771-771 [57]-[60]]. The significance of the probative value of the evidence falls to be gauged having regard to the issues which would arise for the consideration of…
R v TW [2011] ACTCA 25
Citation 26

…iple sentences and there may be a variety of acceptable ways in which to implement the totality principle in a particular sentencing exercise: R v TW [2011] ACTCA 25; 6 ACTLR 18 per Penfold J at [83], applied in Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53 at [70]. See also Hall and Barker at [42], where the Court refer…
Melham v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 121
Citation 27 (Para 6)

…he relevant test is whether the sentence is unreasonable or plainly unjust: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Dinsdale at [6]; Melham v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 121 ( Melham ). A sentence which is unreasonable or plainly unjust for no reason other than that it is manifestly too long is a sentence which is erroneous…
R v SK [2011] NSWCCA 292
Citation 28

…s (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746 R v Mears (1991) 53 A Crim R 141 R v Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450; 151 A Crim R 376 R v SK; SK v R [2011] NSWCCA 292 R v Spiteri [2004] NSWCCA 321; 61 NSWLR 369 R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49 R v Reardon (No 2) [2004] NSWCCA 19…
R v Thorn [2010] ACTCA 10
Citation 29 (Para 32)

…should identify matters that support a conclusion (or necessary inference) of error: R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 at [32], R v Thorn [2010] ACTCA 10 at [33].…
Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260
Citation 30

…R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49 R v Reardon (No 2) [2004] NSWCCA 197; 60 NSWLR 454 R v Murtaza [2001] NSWCCA 336 Singh v R [2015] ACTCA 65 Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260; 262 ALR 91 Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465 Vojneski v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 57; 262 A Crim R 370…
R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49
Citation 31

…0; 151 A Crim R 376 R v SK; SK v R [2011] NSWCCA 292 R v Spiteri [2004] NSWCCA 321; 61 NSWLR 369 R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49 R v Reardon (No 2) [2004] NSWCCA 197; 60 NSWLR 454 R v Murtaza [2001] NSWCCA 336 Singh v R [2015] ACTCA 65 Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260; 262 ALR 91…
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Citation 32

…hoo v R [2013] NSWCCA 323; 237 A Crim R 221 Le Clair v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Medich (No 6) v R [2016] NSWSC 1001 Monfries v R [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80; 68 MVR 385 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 R v Bol…
R v Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450
Citation 33

…92 R v Fischetti (No 5) [2016] ACTSC 213 R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746 R v Mears (1991) 53 A Crim R 141 R v Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450; 151 A Crim R 376 R v SK; SK v R [2011] NSWCCA 292 R v Spiteri [2004] NSWCCA 321; 61 NSWLR 369 R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Todorovic […
R v Spiteri [2004] NSWCCA 321
Citation 34

…eane [1994] 1 WLR 746 R v Mears (1991) 53 A Crim R 141 R v Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450; 151 A Crim R 376 R v SK; SK v R [2011] NSWCCA 292 R v Spiteri [2004] NSWCCA 321; 61 NSWLR 369 R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49 R v Reardon (No 2) [2004] NSWCCA 197; 60 NSWLR 454 R v Murtaza [2…
R v Reardon (No 2) [2004] NSWCCA 197
Citation 35

…2011] NSWCCA 292 R v Spiteri [2004] NSWCCA 321; 61 NSWLR 369 R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49 R v Reardon (No 2) [2004] NSWCCA 197; 60 NSWLR 454 R v Murtaza [2001] NSWCCA 336 Singh v R [2015] ACTCA 65 Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260; 262 ALR 91 Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CL…
R v Finnie [2002] NSWCCA 533
Citation 36 (Para 59)

…remeditated, committed on a number of separate occasions and involve a degree of planning, and are for substantial sums of money ”: In R v Finnie [2002] NSWCCA 533 at [59]. (c)An offender’s “ criminality was not dependent upon whether the banks had been successful in retrieving any part of the money. The amount frau…
Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72
Citation 37

…ght than it logically deserves or by responding emotionally to the inflammatory content of the evidence, where the risk cannot be cured by direction: Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593 at [51] per McHugh J, Lam at [31]-[32], R v Costa (No 1) [2015] ACTSC 63 at [44]. As noted above, tendency evidence usually raises disrep…
R v Murtaza [2001] NSWCCA 336
Citation 38

…21; 61 NSWLR 369 R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49 R v Reardon (No 2) [2004] NSWCCA 197; 60 NSWLR 454 R v Murtaza [2001] NSWCCA 336 Singh v R [2015] ACTCA 65 Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260; 262 ALR 91 Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465 Vojneski v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 57;…
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54
Citation 39

…s is a conclusion which does not depend upon attribution of identified specific error in the reasoning of the sentencing judge: Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 ( Dinsdale ). ·The relevant test is whether the sentence is unreasonable or plainly unjust: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Dinsdale at [6]; Melha…
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
Citation 40

…I have had regard to the principles set out in Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59, 62-63, Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610, 623-624 and the recent observations in the case of Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17; 256 CLR 656 at [61]-[65] in the process of both structuring the sentences and then…
Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22
Citation 41

…Barber v R; Zraika v R [2016] NSWCCA 125 Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; 186 CLR 427 Curran v R [2017] NSWCCA 123 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197 Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Hughes v The Queen…
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70
Citation 42

…I have had regard to the principles set out in Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59, 62-63, Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610, 623-624 and the recent observations in the case of Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17; 256 CLR 656 at [61]-[65] in the process of both structuring the sentences and then…
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14
Citation 43

…4] NSWCCA 197; 60 NSWLR 454 R v Murtaza [2001] NSWCCA 336 Singh v R [2015] ACTCA 65 Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260; 262 ALR 91 Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465 Vojneski v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 57; 262 A Crim R 370…
Mraz v The Queen [1955] HCA 59
Citation 44

…v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Medich (No 6) v R [2016] NSWSC 1001 Monfries v R [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80; 68 MVR 385 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 R v Boland [1974] VR 849 R v Finnie [2002] NSW CCA 533 R v Fischetti (No 1) [2016] ACTSC 104 R v Fischetti (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 292 R v Fischetti (No…
House v R [1936] HCA 40
Citation 45

…R 427 Curran v R [2017] NSWCCA 123 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197 Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Hughes v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 2 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300 Khoo v R [2013] NSWCCA 32…
[1994] 1 WLR 746 [1994] 1 WLR 746
Citation 46

…etti (No 1) [2016] ACTSC 104 R v Fischetti (No 4) [2016] ACTSC 292 R v Fischetti (No 5) [2016] ACTSC 213 R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746 R v Mears (1991) 53 A Crim R 141 R v Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450; 151 A Crim R 376 R v SK; SK v R [2011] NSWCCA 292 R v Spiteri [2004] NSWCCA 321; 61…
House v The King 63 WN 176
Citation 47

…6] HCA 22; 186 CLR 427 Curran v R [2017] NSWCCA 123 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197 Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 344 ALR 187 Hughes v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 2 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300 Khoo v R [2013…
[1999] HCA 29 [1999] HCA 29
Citation 48

…CA 2 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300 Khoo v R [2013] NSWCCA 323; 237 A Crim R 221 Le Clair v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Medich (No 6) v R [2016] NSWSC 1001 Monfries v R [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80; 68 M…

Legislation Cited

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) 101, 101(2), 97
4 mentions