DPP v B Makoi; K Makoi; N Matot; A Matot; A Dau (No 2)

The case of DPP v B Makoi; K Makoi; N Matot; A Matot; A Dau (No 2) involved five defendants who were charged with various offences including aggravated burglary, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, damaging property, and threatening to kill. The case was heard in a court that required determination of several legal issues, particularly surrounding the reliability of evidence from a key witness who had decamped during the trial, and the application of the Murray, Mahmood, and Jovanovic directions. The court had to consider whether the evidence of the witness was reliable enough to convict the defendants, despite the witness not being available for cross-examination.

The primary legal issues included whether the evidence of the complainant, Ms Bol, could be admitted under section 137 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), and if the complainant’s reliability could be reasonably doubted due to the passage of time and her failure to identify the assailants accurately. The court also needed to address the implications of the witness decamping during the trial, which prevented the defendants from cross-examining her. The Murray direction was relevant in assessing the reliability of the complainant’s evidence, while the Mahmood and Jovanovic directions provided guidance on how to handle situations where a key witness is unavailable.

The court found that Ms Bol’s evidence was admissible and reliable, despite some concerns about the passage of time and the witness decamping. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict B Makoi of aggravated burglary, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and damaging property, but there was reasonable doubt about his involvement in the threat to kill charge. The other defendants, K Makoi, N Matot, A Matot, and A Dau, were found not guilty of all charges due to insufficient evidence against them. The court’s decision was based on a careful assessment of the evidence presented and the directions provided by previous case law.

The court ordered that B Makoi be found guilty of the charges of aggravated burglary, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and damaging property, but not guilty of the threat to kill charge. The other defendants were all acquitted of all charges due to the lack of reliable evidence against them. The application for partial exclusion of Ms Bol’s evidence was refused, and the court emphasised the importance of the reliability of witness testimony in criminal proceedings, particularly when the witness is unavailable for cross-examination.