› APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION
› APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL
› MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
› TESTS
› WHETHER THE JURY WOULD HAVE RETURNED THE SAME VERDICT
› MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION
› where trial judge gave “micro-Weissensteiner” direction on the appellant’s silence in court
› whether such a direction caused a miscarriage of justice
Criminal Law
› APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION
› APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL
› MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
› TESTS
› WHETHER THE JURY WOULD HAVE RETURNED THE SAME VERDICT
› MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION
› where trial judge gave Edwards direction regarding the jury’s conclusion on whether deliberate lies had been told which showed a consciousness of guilt
› whether such a direction was defective
› whether such a direction caused a miscarriage of justice
Criminal Law
› APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION
› APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL
› MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
› TESTS
› WHETHER THE JURY WOULD HAVE RETURNED THE SAME VERDICT
› IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE
› where witness gave identification evidence regarding security photographs
› whether the witness’ opinion that the person in the photograph was the appellant was inadmissible as evidence
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 567
Case Details
Citation[2005] QCA 4
CourtQCA
JurisdictionQueensland
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.
