Adam (a pseudonym) v Nihill

[2026] ACTSC 25

Supreme Court of the ACT12 February 2026

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal from Magistrates Court
4. › Rehearing
5. › Whether verdict unreasonable
6. › Independent assessment of evidence
7. › Whether evidence capable of establishing charges as particularised
8. › Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 207, 208, 214, 218(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal from Magistrates Court
4. › Rule in Browne v Dunn
5. › Application in criminal proceedings
6. › Whether magistrate erred in reducing weight of accused's evidence for failure to cross-examine complainant
7. › Consequences of non-compliance with rule
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Liberato direction
4. › De Silva direction
5. › Whether direction adequately given
6. › Whether direction misapplied in reasoning to guilt
7. › Whether magistrate impermissibly chose between two versions of events
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Expert evidence
4. › Whether finding within common knowledge
5. › Whether force can be applied to neck without leaving mark
6. › Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), s 144

Quick Take

The rule in Browne v Dunn may properly be applied to reduce the weight of asserted inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence where those inconsistencies were not put to the complainant in cross-examination, but it is an error to use the rule to reduce the weight of the accused's own evidence because it was not put to the complainant.

Case Details

Citation[2026] ACTSC 25

CourtACTSC

JurisdictionAustralian Capital Territory

Decision Date12 February 2026

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on26

2025The King v ZTHCA 9
2023Alexander v BakesACTCA 49
2023Lang v The QueenHCA 29
2023Park v RNSWCCA 71
and 22 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in