R v Mdi

[2020] QCA 244

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Misdirection or non-direction
5. › Longman direction
6. › Whether direction adequately applied to corroborative witness evidence
7. › Whether jury understood direction applied to all relevant counts
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Further evidence on appeal
5. › Whether new evidence available at trial with reasonable diligence
6. › Whether residual discretion to receive non-fresh evidence
7. › Whether refusal would result in miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence
4. › Inconsistencies in witness evidence
5. › Acquittals on other counts
6. › Whether corroborative evidence distinguished convicted counts from acquitted counts

Quick Take

The existence of corroborative evidence does not relieve a trial judge of the obligation to give a Longman direction regarding delay, but a Longman direction that does not expressly exempt certain counts from its scope will be taken to apply to all counts. Where a jury acquits on uncorroborated counts but convicts on corroborated counts, the distinction in the evidence can explain the different verdicts and the convictions will not be unreasonable.

Case Details

Citation[2020] QCA 244

CourtQCA

JurisdictionQueensland

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on8

2012R v SpinaQCA 179
2005Mallard v RHCA 68
2005R v BatQCA 82
2002R v CQCA 166
and 4 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in