Dunks v The Queen; Miller v The Queen - [2010] NSWCCA 312

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Dunks v R; Miller v R [2010] NSWCCA 312
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 14 December 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 December 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 1; Hall J at 2; Garling J at 3

DECISION: Convictions for each of the appellants on the charge of robbery in company are quashed. Verdict of acquittal entered in favour of each appellant.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Robbery in company – Appeal against conviction – Unreasonable verdict – Where the victim was robbed by three men at night in Kings Cross – Where there was no evidence as to the exact time of the robbery – Where CCTV footage showed the appellants in company with one of the robbers near the location of the robbery at 2:30am – Where the appellants were subsequently found by police, and the victim, in the company of one of the robbers – Where the victim identified the robbers by their dark clothing, but the appellants were wearing light clothing – Where the Crown case relied largely upon identification evidence of the victim – Whether verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence at trial.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606
Regina v Habib [2005] NSWCCA 22
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300

PARTIES:
2009/151583
Ronnie Paul Dunks (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
2009/141812
Jade Michael Miller (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2009/151583; 2009/141812

COUNSEL:
2009/151583
R. Burgess (Applicant)
P. Leask (Respondent)
2009/141812
C. Loukas (Applicant)
P. Leask (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
2009/151583
Aboriginal Legal Service (Applicant)
S. Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
2009/141812
Aboriginal Legal Service (Applicant)
S. Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2009/151583 and 2009/141812

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Blackmore DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 4 March 2010

2009/151583
2009/141812

SIMPSON J
HALL J
GARLING J
THURSDAY, 16 DECEMBER 2010

RONNIE PAUL DUNKS v R

JADE MICHAEL MILLER v R

Judgment

1 SIMPSON J: I agree with Garling J.

2 HALL J: I agree with Garling J.

3 GARLING J: In the early hours of 19 March 2009, Jason Iles was walking through Springfield Plaza at Kings Cross in Sydney. He was approached by three men and robbed of his watch and cash.

4 He reported the robbery straight away to the Kings Cross Police Station and was asked to accompany officers from that Station in a police car as it drove around the Kings Cross area in an attempt to find the robbers.

5 In William Street, about 50 minutes later, he identified three men who were walking along the street as the people who had robbed him.

6 That group of three included…

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 Dunks v The Queen; Miller 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: [2010] NSWCCA 312
Decision Date: 16 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent decision of Dunks v The Queen; Miller v The Queen, the High Court was tasked with reviewing the conviction of two appellants on charges of robbery in company. The appellants were alleged to have participated in a robbery in Kings Cross, along with another individual, who was not prosecuted in this case. The victim was robbed at night, but the exact time of the incident was not established. CCTV footage captured the appellants in the company of one of the robbers at 2:30am near the scene of the crime. The victim identified the robbers by their dark clothing, but the appellants were wearing light clothing at the time of their arrest.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the verdict of the appellants' guilt was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence presented at trial. The court had to consider the reliability and weight of the identification evidence, the significance of the CCTV footage, and the appellants' proximity to the crime scene and the known robber. The Crown's case heavily relied on the victim's identification, despite the discrepancies in clothing and the lack of direct evidence linking the appellants to the crime. The appellants argued that the identification was unreliable and that the evidence was insufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that the victim's identification, while not infallible, was sufficiently reliable to support the verdict. The court acknowledged the discrepancies in clothing but emphasised that the identification was made under challenging circumstances, shortly after the incident. The court also considered the CCTV footage, which showed the appellants in the company of one of the robbers near the location of the robbery. The court concluded that, when viewed in conjunction with the identification evidence, the CCTV footage provided a strong circumstantial case against the appellants. The court ultimately held that the verdict was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence, affirming the appellants' convictions.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeals of both appellants, upholding their convictions for robbery in company. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not so unreasonable as to justify interference. The decision reinforces the importance of considering all available evidence, including circumstantial evidence, in criminal cases where direct evidence may be lacking.

Orders