CITATION: Regina v Denis BRITTAIN [1999] NSWCCA 450 FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60407/93 HEARING DATE(S): 1December 1999 JUDGMENT DATE:
1 December 1999PARTIES :
Regina
Denis BRITTAIN - ApplicantJUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Sully J at 1; Simpson J at 1
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 90/31/0749 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hosking DCJ
COUNSEL: P Berman - Crown
T Game SC with R Burgess - ApplicantSOLICITORS: S E O'Connor - Crown
T A Murphy - ApplicantCATCHWORDS: DECISION: Appeal allowed. The conviction and sentence are quashed. The court will not order a new trial
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
WOOD CJ at CL
60407/93
SULLY J
SIMPSON J
1 December 1999
REGINA v Denis BRITTAINJudgment
THE COURT :
1 I note that during the course of argument certain matters came to the attention of the Crown Prosecutor. Upon instructions it was conceded the appeal should be allowed. The conviction is quashed. As a matter of discretion it was also conceded that it would be appropriate for the Court to not order a new trial.
2 The order of the court is, therefore, that the appeal be allowed. The conviction and sentence are quashed. The Court will not order a new trial.
**********
Details
- AGLC
- Regina v Denis BRITTAIN [1999] NSWCCA 450
- Case
- [1999] NSWCCA 450
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Regina v Denis Brittain was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales. The applicant, Denis Brittain, appealed against his conviction and sentence following his trial in the District Court. The Crown Prosecutor conceded during the course of the appeal hearing that the appeal should be allowed, and it was also agreed that a new trial should not be ordered.
The legal issues that arose for determination in this appeal pertained to the validity of the conviction and sentence imposed on the applicant. The Crown Prosecutor conceded that errors had occurred during the trial which warranted the quashing of the conviction and sentence. The central issue was whether these errors were significant enough to justify allowing the appeal and quashing the conviction and sentence without ordering a new trial.
The Court of Criminal Appeal, in allowing the appeal, found that the errors made during the trial were significant enough to warrant quashing the conviction and sentence. Given the concessions made by the Crown Prosecutor that a new trial should not be ordered, the Court exercised its discretion to quash the conviction and sentence without ordering a new trial. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were quashed. The Court did not deem it necessary to order a new trial.
The final order of the Court was that the appeal be allowed, the conviction and sentence be quashed, and no new trial be ordered. This outcome reflects the Court's consideration of the significant errors in the trial process and the agreement of both parties that a new trial was not warranted.
The legal issues that arose for determination in this appeal pertained to the validity of the conviction and sentence imposed on the applicant. The Crown Prosecutor conceded that errors had occurred during the trial which warranted the quashing of the conviction and sentence. The central issue was whether these errors were significant enough to justify allowing the appeal and quashing the conviction and sentence without ordering a new trial.
The Court of Criminal Appeal, in allowing the appeal, found that the errors made during the trial were significant enough to warrant quashing the conviction and sentence. Given the concessions made by the Crown Prosecutor that a new trial should not be ordered, the Court exercised its discretion to quash the conviction and sentence without ordering a new trial. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were quashed. The Court did not deem it necessary to order a new trial.
The final order of the Court was that the appeal be allowed, the conviction and sentence be quashed, and no new trial be ordered. This outcome reflects the Court's consideration of the significant errors in the trial process and the agreement of both parties that a new trial was not warranted.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.