Clint Joseph Brilley v The Queen - [2008] NSWCCA 208

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
Clint Joseph Brilley v R [2008] NSWCCA 208

FILE NUMBER(S):
2006/5201002

HEARING DATE(S):
6 August, 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 September 2008

PARTIES:
Clint Joseph Brilley (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF:
McClellan CJ at CL Grove J Blanch J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/11/0169

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Geraghty DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
4 September, 2006

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
Regina v Clint Brilley

COUNSEL:
C Davenport SC (Appellant)
L Wells (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
S Moran & Co (Appellant)
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law
identification
unreasonable verdict

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900, s97(2)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s6(1)
Evidence Act 1995, s116, s137, s138

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593
R v Yuill (1993) ACrimR 450
R v Demirok (1977) 137 CLR 20
Domican v The Queen (1991-1992) 173 CLR 554
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Hargan v The Queen (1919) 27 CLR 13
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR at 516
Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
Grant extension of time to appeal. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 2006/5201002
McCLELLAN CJ at CL
GROVE J
BLANCH J
9 September, 2008

Clint Joseph BRILLEY v Regina

JUDGMENT

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Blanch J.

GROVE J: I agree with Blanch J.

BLANCH J: The appellant stood trial in the District Court in Sydney between 31 July, 2006 and 4 September, 2006. He was tried together with Marco Coffen and was convicted of a charge of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon contrary to s97(2) of the Crimes Act, 1900, the charge on the indictment. The jury could not agree in respect of the charge against Coffen and he subsequently pleaded guilty to a charge of accessory before the fact to armed robbery. The appellant was sentenced on 9 November, 2006 to a non-parole period of 5 years and a total term of 7 years and 6 months. His appeal is against conviction only.

The Facts

The robbery in question was committed on 28 November, 2002 at the warehouse of CTI Logistics in O’Riordan Street, Alexandria in Sydney. Three employees of the company arrived for work shortly after 5.45 a.m. Soon after they arrived three men entered the warehouse disguised in dust masks or balaclavas, sunglasses, cotton gloves, disposable overalls and orange reflective vests. Two were armed with pistols and one with a baseball bat. They arrived at or had at their disposal a recently stolen white Isuzu truck, registration number LGN 500. They maintained contact using walkie-talkies with a fourth man who was outside in a stolen blue or purple Subaru. During the course of the robbery one employee Burt Errington was beaten with a baseball bat which broke. He ran from the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Clint Joseph Brilley v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NSWCCA 208
Decision Date: 9 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the defendant, Clint Joseph Brilley, against his conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The appeal was brought before the High Court of Australia, which heard arguments on the question of whether the conviction was unreasonable, given the circumstances of the case. The defendant's primary contention was that the identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime was unreliable and insufficient to support the jury's verdict.

The central legal issues that the court was required to address involved the weight and sufficiency of the identification evidence. The defendant argued that the identification process was fundamentally flawed and that the identification evidence was not reliable enough to support a conviction. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the appropriate standards for assessing identification evidence and whether the jury had been properly guided in reaching their verdict.

In its judgment, the court examined the evidence and the trial judge's directions to the jury. The High Court found that the trial judge had not adequately instructed the jury on the proper assessment of identification evidence, which was a critical error. The court emphasised the importance of clear and precise directions when it comes to identification evidence, as it is often a key component in criminal cases. The High Court concluded that the error in the trial judge's directions had led to an unreasonable verdict, and thus the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

The High Court ordered that the conviction be quashed and that a new trial be held, with proper directions to the jury on the assessment of identification evidence. The court emphasised the importance of clear judicial direction in criminal trials, particularly when it comes to the assessment of potentially unreliable identification evidence.

Orders