R v Sabbah

[2004] NSWCCA 28

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction appeal
4. › Inconsistent verdicts
5. › Whether verdicts of guilty on some counts inconsistent with acquittal on another count
6. › Whether jury acted unreasonably
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction appeal
4. › Unreasonable verdict
5. › Whether verdicts supported by evidence
6. › Credibility of witnesses
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Warning to jury
4. › Section 165 Evidence Act 1995
5. › Whether warning required for evidence of witness who was drug dealer
6. › Whether witness 'criminally concerned in the events giving rise to the proceeding'
7. › Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165(1)(d)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Accused's failure to give evidence
5. › Whether trial judge required to direct that accused may have had reasons for remaining silent
6. › Failure of counsel to seek re-direction

Quick Take

Section 165(1)(d) of the Evidence Act 1995 does not require a warning merely because a witness is a drug dealer; the criminal behaviour must concern the events giving rise to the proceeding. The defence of claim of right requires evidence of a belief in legal (not merely moral) entitlement, and where the accused acts as agent for another, there must be evidence of a belief that the principal had a legal entitlement. The claim of right does not apply where the property taken exceeds the amount of the bona fide claim, or where the underlying debt has been satisfied.