Both sides of any legal dispute, civil and criminal, must comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn (1894) 6 R 67 at hearing.But few legal minds agree precisely on the level of detail that proper puttage must go to, or even how to go about it. And, of course, with the infinite number of …
Tag: precedent
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
Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36: hearsay, lay opinion evidence and business documents
Sometimes the wheels of justice grind very slowly.The High Court heard appeals from this case twice, most recently delivering its decision on 28 September 2011. The NSW Court of Appeal also dealt with the matter twice. On its face it's a fairly simple negligence action arising from a fall in a public park one night …
Applying Verdins
Edit: In Abdifar v The Queen [2012] VSCA 66 the Court of Appeal rejected the notion that Verdins needs to be specifically referred to by the sentencing judge in order to find that the principles had been properly considered.It is true that his Honour did not explicitly mention the extent to which he thought that …