Pinpoint · Judgment search

Barta v Regina

[2006] NSWCCA 6

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal · 3 February 2006 · Official judgment

Cited by 4 indexed judgments

All Cited 4

2006: 1 citing judgment 2007: 1 citing judgment 2009: 1 citing judgment 2022: 1 citing judgment 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025
citing judgments per year of which distinguished, doubted, not followed or overruled · line marks the decision

Sort: Oldest first Newest first Most cited

  1. Regina v Stankovic [2006] NSWCCA 229 Cited NSW Court of Criminal Appeal · cited 16× · judgment
  2. Nguyen v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 15 Cited NSW Court of Criminal Appeal · cited 6× · judgment
  3. Andrew Joseph THORN V R [2009] NSWCCA 294 Cited NSW Court of Criminal Appeal · cited 41× · judgment
  4. R v Barta [2022] NSWDC 587 Cited District Court of NSW · judgment

Tree of authority

Built on

The authorities this case relies on, earliest first, and the authorities those relied on. Open a branch to go further back.

Built upon

Later cases citing this one, in order of decision, and the cases citing them in turn. The most cited are shown at each level.

Authorities cited (10)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. R v GDR (1994) 35 NSWLR 376 Cited cited 39×
  2. R v Hodges (1997) 95 A Crim R 85 Distinguished cited 9×
  3. R v Singh [2001] NSWCCA 424 Cited cited 7×
  4. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S APPLICATION UNDER s37 OF THE CRIMES (SENTENCING PROCEDURE) ACT 1999 NO 1 OF 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518 Cited cited 871×
  5. Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25 Cited cited 2,508×
  6. R v Caccamo [2005] NSWCCA 257 Cited
  7. R v Markarian [2005] NSWCCA 264 Cited cited 4×
  8. Regina v McMillan [2005] NSWCCA 28 Cited cited 14×
  9. R v LLM [2005] NSWCCA 302 Cited cited 4×
  10. LIU v R [2005] NSWCCA 450 Cited cited 3×
How the citator works

Citations are read from the text of each indexed judgment. A report citation written alongside a neutral citation, such as [2008] HCA 9; (2008) 234 CLR 50, teaches the citator that both name the same case, so later citations by either are counted together.

Treatment is read from the words in the sentence that cites the case: overruled or disapproved; not followed or declined to follow; distinguished or distinguishable; doubted; applied, followed or adopted. Anything else is cited. It is a guide to which judgments to read, not a judicial history: a judgment that discusses a case at length without one of those words is shown as citing it, and one mentioning several cases in a sentence may attach the word to all of them.

Only judgments in this index are counted, mostly the High Court, the Federal Court and New South Wales courts and tribunals since 2006. Earlier cases appear as authorities but their own authorities are unknown, so a tree ends there. Check a treatment by reading the passage before relying on it.

Judgment text is from the Open Australian Legal Corpus (Isaacus, CC BY 4.0) and the courts’ own websites. Each judgment links to its official version: read it before relying on anything here.