Aggravated burglary is capable of being dealt with summarily (provided the accused consents to jurisdiction) because of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.If it wasn't specifically included at clause 4 the offence wouldn't be triable summarily, because the 25 year maximum sentence far exceeds the limit allowed the Magistrates' Court of Victoria by …
Month: October 2011
DPP v Giannoukas [2011] VSCA 296: "glassing means jail", but not always
The other day I mentioned in passing an attempt by the DPP to persuade the Court of Appeal to prioritise general deterrence above current sentencing practices for the offence of recklessly causing serious injury under s 17 of the Crimes Act. The case was Winch v The Queen [2010] VSCA 141, and we discussed it …
Continue reading DPP v Giannoukas [2011] VSCA 296: "glassing means jail", but not always
DPP v Giannoukas [2011] VSCA 296: "glassing means jail", but not always
The other day I mentioned in passing an attempt by the DPP to persuade the Court of Appeal to prioritise general deterrence above current sentencing practices for the offence of recklessly causing serious injury under s 17 of the Crimes Act. The case was Winch v The Queen [2010] VSCA 141, and we discussed it …
Continue reading DPP v Giannoukas [2011] VSCA 296: "glassing means jail", but not always
Getting AROUND
Hat tip to Lauren K at Legal Research Rescue, a useful (if occasional) source of information about new techniques for legal research. We've referred to her site here before, but not for a while. It has many quick tips to help the non-tech savvy find what they are looking for, like this simple one about …
The law of unintended consequences
The Judicial College's Charge Book has this to say about the assessment of witnesses (at 1.6.1.5):It is generally a misdirection to tell the jury that if they think a witness has an interest in the outcome, they should scrutinise their evidence closely. This is because the jury will likely conclude that the accused has the …