NESTOROV -v- R [1999] WASCA 303
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 303 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 21/12/1999 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:134/1998 | 16 NOVEMBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J IPP J WALLWORK J | 23/11/99 | |
| 21 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Conviction quashed New trial ordered | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KOLE NESTOROV THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Evidence Lies by accused both in and out of court Materiality of lies Whether directions to jury adequate |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 Leary v R [1975] WAR 133 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 Osland v The Queen (1998) 73 ALJR 173 Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 Cumming v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950650; 29 November 1995 Giowkos v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960470; 26 August 1996 HG v The Queen [1999] HCA 2; (1999) 73 ALJR 281 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Mallard v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960505; 11 September 1996 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Johnson (1992) 57 A Crim R 290 R v Weng (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 R v Zheng (1995) 83 A Crim R 572 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : NESTOROV -v- R [1999] WASCA 303 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- IPP J
WALLWORK J
- CCA 135 of 1998
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Evidence - Lies by accused both in and out of court - Materiality of lies - Whether directions to jury adequate
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed
New trial ordered
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr M T Ritter
Respondent : Mr D Dempster
Solicitors:
Applicant : Monaghan & Associates
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Leary v R [1975] WAR 133
Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493
Osland v The Queen (1998) 73 ALJR 173
Case(s) also cited:
Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521
Cumming v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950650; 29 November 1995
Giowkos v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960470; 26 August 1996
HG v The Queen [1999] HCA 2; (1999) 73 ALJR 281
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Mallard v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960505; 11 September 1996
Postiglione v The…
Continue reading Nestorov v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Nestorov v The Queen [1999] WASCA 303
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 303
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Nestorov v The Queen is a case involving the appellant, who was convicted of several serious criminal charges. The appellant appealed against his conviction on the basis that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the lies he told both in and out of court were inadequate. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system.
The central legal issue in this case was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient to ensure that the jury did not give undue weight to the appellant's lies. The appellant's counsel argued that the trial judge's directions were inadequate because they did not adequately address the materiality of the lies. The Crown, on the other hand, argued that the trial judge's directions were sufficient and that the jury was properly instructed on the relevance of the lies.
The High Court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate. The court held that the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider the materiality of the lies told by the appellant both in and out of court. The court found that the trial judge's directions did not adequately address the materiality of the lies and that this was a significant error that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The court held that the appellant's conviction should be quashed and a new trial ordered.
The central legal issue in this case was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient to ensure that the jury did not give undue weight to the appellant's lies. The appellant's counsel argued that the trial judge's directions were inadequate because they did not adequately address the materiality of the lies. The Crown, on the other hand, argued that the trial judge's directions were sufficient and that the jury was properly instructed on the relevance of the lies.
The High Court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate. The court held that the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider the materiality of the lies told by the appellant both in and out of court. The court found that the trial judge's directions did not adequately address the materiality of the lies and that this was a significant error that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The court held that the appellant's conviction should be quashed and a new trial ordered.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed
New trial ordered
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.