CAFARO -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 208

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 208
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:144/1999	Heard:	13 FEBRUARY 2002
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ ANDERSON J WHEELER J	Delivered:	7/08/02
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	LUCIANO EUGENE CAFARO THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Evidence Identification Photoboard identification Admissibility Accused a suspect at time of identification No identification parade Whether special directions required Whether probative value outweighed by prejudice to accused Whether directions to jury regarding dangers of photographic evidence sufficient
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA), s 371A, s 378, s 391, s 393
Case References:	Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395 Clune v R [1996] VR 1 Collard v The Queen [2000] WASCA 417 Dawson v The Queen [1990] 2 WAR 458 Domican v The Queen (1992) 66 ALJR 285 Hayles v The Queen (1990) 54 SASR 549 Pitkin (1995) 80 A Crim R 302 Roser v The Queen [2001] WASCA 190 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : CAFARO -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 208 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

ANDERSON J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 13 FEBRUARY 2002 DELIVERED : 7 AUGUST 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 144 of 1999 BETWEEN : LUCIANO EUGENE CAFARO

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Evidence - Identification - Photoboard identification - Admissibility - Accused a suspect at time of identification - No identification parade - Whether special directions required - Whether probative value outweighed by prejudice to accused - Whether directions to jury regarding dangers of photographic evidence sufficient

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 371A, s 378, s 391, s 393

(Page 2)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Amicus Curiae

: Ms K J Farley

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Amicus Curiae

: Unrepresented Criminal Appellants Scheme

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395
Clune v R [1996] VR 1
Collard v The Queen [2000] WASCA 417
Dawson v The Queen [1990] 2 WAR 458
Domican v The Queen (1992) 66 ALJR 285
Hayles v The Queen (1990) 54 SASR 549
Pitkin (1995) 80 A Crim R 302
Roser v The Queen [2001] WASCA 190

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: The appellant was presented for trial in this Court on 16 June 1998 before Miller J and a jury on an indictment containing two counts. Count (1) alleged that on 15 May 1998 at Nedlands he stole a motor vehicle registration number 6CE 632 the property of Belcunda Pty Ltd trading as Brooking Mazda contrary to s 371A and s 378 of the Criminal Code. Count (2) alleged that on the same…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cafaro v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Cafaro v The Queen [2002] WASCA 208
Case: [2002] WASCA 208
Decision Date: 7 AUGUST 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cafaro v The Queen involved an appeal against conviction by the accused, Cafaro, on charges of armed robbery. The central issue was the admissibility of a photoboard identification made by a witness in identifying the accused as one of the perpetrators. The identification was made without the accused being present in a formal identification parade. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The court was required to decide whether special directions were necessary to the jury regarding the dangers of relying on a photoboard identification when the accused was a suspect at the time the identification was made. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the probative value of the photoboard identification was outweighed by the risk of prejudice to the accused. This involved determining if the jury was adequately warned about the potential unreliability of such evidence.

The High Court held that while the probative value of the photoboard identification was significant, it was not enough to outweigh the inherent dangers of such evidence when the accused was already a suspect. The court concluded that special directions to the jury were necessary to mitigate the risks associated with this type of evidence. However, the court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient to address these risks. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

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.