R v Ogunseye

[2024] QCA 152

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. › Failure to give Edwards-type direction on consciousness of guilt
6. › Whether direction required where Crown relied on statements as direct admissions rather than implied admissions
7. › Whether request to delete recording necessitated direction
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Admissions
4. › Out of court admissions by accused
5. › Distinction between direct admissions and implied admissions demonstrating consciousness of guilt
6. › Directions to jury on use of admissions evidence

Quick Take

An Edwards-type direction is not required where the Crown relies on an accused's post-offence statements as direct admissions of guilt rather than as implied admissions demonstrating consciousness of guilt, even where some evidence (such as a request to delete a recording) might be capable of being viewed as consciousness of guilt evidence.

Case Details

Citation[2024] QCA 152

CourtQCA

JurisdictionQueensland

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on

R v ChangVSCA 149
HCF v The QueenHCA 35
R v WBSQCA 180
R v OthQCA 53

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in