Clifford v The Queen - [2004] TASSC 16

[2004] TASSC 16

CITATION: Clifford v R [2004] TASSC 16

PARTIES:  CLIFFORD, Ricky Guy
  v
  R

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 119/2003
DELIVERED ON:  10 March 2004
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  1 March 2004
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood, Crawford and Slicer JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Evidentiary matters relating to witnesses and accused persons – Identification evidence – Direction to jury – Whether warning required or advisable – What amounts to "identification evidence".

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss3(1), 116.
R v Smith [2000] NSWCCA 468; Dhanhoa v R (2003) 77 ALJR 1433; 199 ALR 547, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [613]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  G A Richardson
             Respondent:  J N Perks
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  G A Richardson
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2004] TASSC 16
Number of Paragraphs: 40

Serial No 16/2004
File No CCA 119/2003

RICKY GUY CLIFFORD v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD J
CRAWFORD J
SLICER J
10 March 2004

Orders of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Serial No 16/2004
File No CCA 119/2003

RICKY GUY CLIFFORD v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD J
10 March 2004

I agree with Crawford J's reasons for judgment and the orders that he proposes be made in this appeal.
File No CCA 119/2003

RICKY GUY CLIFFORD v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD J
10 March 2004

The appellant was found guilty by a jury of one count of assault. Particulars of the charge were that on 17 February 2002, he punched Matthew James Grice in the face. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.

He appealed and sought leave to appeal against the jury's verdict and he appealed against the sentence, but abandoned the appeal against sentence. The grounds of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal against the verdict, that were maintained, were collectively the following:

1That the learned trial judge erred in law by failing to direct the jury of the need for caution before accepting identification evidence, as required by the Evidence Act 2001 ("the Act"), s116.
2That the learned trial judge erred by failing to comply with a request by the jury for a break in their deliberations.

Ground 1 ¾ identification evidence

It was not disputed at the trial, and the evidence established, that the appellant was present at or near the place where the alleged offence was committed. See the definition of "identification evidence" in the Act, s3(1). It was not an issue at the trial that Mr Grice was struck in the jaw and that he suffered fractures as a result. The only major issue was whether it was the appellant who struck him. There was a considerable body of evidence from four witnesses that led to a conclusion that he was the assailant. The evidence of his employee and companion that night, Mr Bayles,…

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 Clifford v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Clifford v The Queen [2004] TASSC 16
Case: [2004] TASSC 16
Decision Date: 10 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Clifford v The Queen was heard in a court in Australia where the defendant, Clifford, was charged with various criminal offences. The prosecution's case heavily relied on identification evidence provided by witnesses who identified Clifford as the perpetrator. The central issue in this case was whether the trial judge was required or advised to give a specific direction to the jury regarding the weight to be given to identification evidence. The defence argued that the trial judge should have warned the jury about the potential unreliability of identification evidence, while the prosecution contended that no such direction was necessary.

The court had to determine the legal parameters for when a warning is required or advisable in relation to identification evidence. The key question was whether the circumstances of the case warranted a direction to the jury about the reliability of identification testimony. The court examined the nature of identification evidence and the circumstances under which such evidence could be deemed unreliable. It considered previous case law and the principles established in relation to warnings and directions to juries regarding identification evidence.

In delivering its judgment, the court concluded that the trial judge did not err in failing to give a direction to the jury regarding the weight to be given to identification evidence. The court found that the evidence presented was such that no specific warning was required or advisable. The reliability of the identification evidence was sufficiently addressed through the cross-examination of the witnesses and the overall context of the evidence. The court emphasised the importance of assessing each case on its own merits and the role of the jury in evaluating the credibility of witness testimony.

The court upheld the conviction, confirming that the trial judge's approach to the identification evidence was correct. The decision underscored the need for courts to carefully consider the circumstances of each case when determining whether a direction to the jury is necessary in relation to identification evidence. The court's reasoning provided clarity on the application of legal principles regarding warnings and directions in criminal trials involving identification evidence.

Orders