QLDQCA
R v Jurcik [2001] QCA 390
[2001] QCA 390
Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-09-21|Before: Thomas JA, White and Wilson JJSeparate 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
2001-09-21
Before
Thomas JA, White and Wilson JJSeparate 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
- – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISED
- IN COURT BELOW
- – MISDIRECTION AND NON – DIRECTION –GENERAL –whether
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION– APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISEDIN COURT BELOW– MISDIRECTION AND NON – DIRECTION –GENERAL –whethersufficient evidence to support a directionto the jury as to theappellant’s intoxication - whether sufficient evidence to support adirection to the jury as to theappellant’s good characterCRIMINALLAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL ANDNEW TRIAL - OBJECTIONS AND POINTS NOT RAISEDIN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTIONAND NON – DIRECTION – GENERAL – whether miscarriage of justicein failure todirect jury that defence counsel had put to a prosecution witnessthat a conversation did not occurCRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL ANDINQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINSTSENTENCE –GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES –whether sentence manifestly excessive.Criminal Code (Qld) s