QLDQCA
R v Fullgrabe [2002] QCA 366
[2002] QCA 366
Court of Appeal (Qld)|2002-09-20|Before: Davies and Jerrard JJA, Mackenzie JSeparate reasons, for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders, made
View original sourceAt a glance
Source factsCourt
Court of Appeal (Qld)
Decision date
2002-09-20
Before
Davies and Jerrard JJA, Mackenzie JSeparate reasons, for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders, made
Catchwords
- CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION
- – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION
- –
- GENERAL MATTERS – whether the trial judge gave no direction concerning
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION– PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION–GENERAL MATTERS – whether the trial judge gave no direction concerningreasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence- where sufficient directionsgivenCRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION– GENERAL MATTERS – PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE ANDCROWN CASE ANDREVIEW OF EVIDENCE - GENERALLY – whether judicial comments in summing-uppermissible – whether summing-upunbalanced – whether trial judgemisstated the evidence of a witness – whether the misstatement whencompounded withthe trial judge’s comments led to the appellant beingdenied a fair trialCriminal Code (Qld), s 620NominalDefendant v Clements [1960] HCA 39(1960) 104 CLR 476, approvedRPS v The Queen[2000] HCA 3(2000) 199 CLR 620, consideredR v Bolic and Judd [1969] Qd R 295,