TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS) JURISDICTION: APPELLATE FILE NO/S: CCA 51/2000 DELIVERED ON: 20 December 2000 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATES: 31 October, 1 November 2000 JUDGMENT OF: Cox CJ, Slicer and Blow JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Adjournment, stay of proceedings or order restraining proceedings - Stay of proceedings - Generally - Delay in commencing proceedings - Whether undue prejudice demonstrated.
Criminal Law - Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction - Appeal and new trial - Particular grounds - Misdirection and non-direction - General matters - Presentation of defence case and Crown case and review of evidence - New basis for conviction - Not addressed before summing-up.
Criminal Law - Evidence - Evidentiary matters relating to witnesses and accused persons - Identification evidence - Direction to jury - Adequacy of warning - Recognition by person knowing accused.
Counsel: Appellant: D Ross QC and B Fox Respondent: T J Ellis Solicitors: Appellant: Trezise Partners Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2000] TASSC 183 Number of Paragraphs: 91
Serial No 183/2000 File No CCA 51/2000
DENNIS ROBERT CARR v THE QUEEN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
COX CJ SLICER J BLOW J 20 December 2000
Orders of the Court:
Appeal allowed.
Conviction quashed.
Order that the appellant be re-tried.
Serial No 183/2000 File No CCA 51/2000
DENNIS ROBERT CARR v THE QUEEN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
COX CJ 20 December 2000
I have had the advantage of reading in draft form the Reasons for Judgment prepared by Blow J. With the exception of his reasons in respect of ground 1(b), I am in full agreement with his reasons and conclusions that the appeal should be allowed, the conviction quashed and a new trial ordered. In respect of ground 1(b), namely the failure to give the type of warning required by Longman v R (1989) 168 CLR 79 and Crampton v R [2000] HCA 60, I have some reservations as to the conclusion that the learned trial judge was in error. Both Longman and Crampton were cases of sexual molestation of young complainants many years prior to trial. In Longman, however, at 86, Brennan,…
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 Carr v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Carr v The Queen [2000] TASSC 183
Case
[2000] TASSC 183
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Carr sought to appeal his conviction for armed robbery, arguing that the trial judge erred in not staying the proceedings due to an undue delay in bringing the charges and in not adequately directing the jury on the evidence of identification. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issues for the court were whether the trial judge should have stayed the proceedings due to the delay in commencing them and whether the trial judge gave an adequate direction to the jury about the identification evidence.
The court found that the delay in commencing the proceedings was not so significant as to prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial. The court held that while there had been a delay, it did not reach the level of undue prejudice necessary to warrant a stay of proceedings. The court also examined the adequacy of the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the identification evidence. It was determined that the trial judge did not adequately warn the jury about the potential unreliability of the identification evidence, as the person who identified the appellant knew him prior to the offence. This misdirection by the trial judge was significant enough to warrant a new trial.
Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered that the appellant be re-tried. This decision underscores the importance of timely proceedings and the necessity for accurate and complete jury directions, particularly in matters involving identification evidence.