Gibbs, B.J. v The Queen - [1993] FCA 969

BRENDAN JOSEPH GIBBS v. THE QUEEN
No. ACT G43 of 1993
FED No. 969/93
Number of pages - 7
Criminal Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SPENDER, MILES AND EINFELD JJ

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Law - Appeal and New Trial - unreasonable or unsupportable verdict - principles applied by appeal court when reviewing a decision on the basis of unsafe or unsatisfactory verdict - whether identification evidence insufficient for conviction by jury - whether verdict unsafe in light of rejection of alibi evidence.

Criminal Law - Evidence - evidentiary matters relating to witnesses and accused - identification evidence - identification from photographs - whether identification of accused by witness from a collection of 12 photographs shown to witness 48 hours after offence is reliable when only 3 of those photographs matched description of offender - accused not a "direct suspect" - circumstances of and limitations upon showing to witness by police a series of photographs for purposes of identification of offender.

Crimes Act 1900 (A.C.T.) s. 103.

Alexander v. The Queen (1980-81) 145 CLR 395.

Chidiac v. The Queen (1990-91) 171 CLR 432.

Knight v. The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495.

Morris v. The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454.

HEARING

CANBERRA, 25 October 1993

#DATE 21:12:1993

Counsel for the appellant: Mr R. Livingston

Solicitors for the appellant: Gilpin and Associates

Counsel for the respondent: Mr J. Ibbotson

Solicitors for the respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

SPENDER, MILES AND EINFELD JJ This is an appeal by Brendan Joseph Gibbs from the conviction on his trial before Higgins J and a jury on 20 April 1993. The jury convicted the appellant on a charge that on 10 March 1992 the appellant entered as a trespasser the Heritage Motor Inn, Narrabundah, with intent to steal therein and at the time of so doing had with him an offensive weapon, namely, a knife. The appellant was sentenced by Higgins J on 2 July 1993.

The only ground of the appeal is:

" The verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory and against the weight of the evidence. "

Two bases are relied on by the appellant for the submission that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The first calls into question the quality of identification evidence of one Anthony Jason Charman, who was the occupant of a unit at the Heritage Motor Inn and who confronted an intruder in that unit on the evening of 10 March 1992. The intruder produced a knife and threatened Mr Charman and made good his escape by jumping from the balcony of the unit to concrete some ten to twelve feet below and running off through parkland with Mr Charman's wallet containing $525.00.
The Crown case against the appellant relied essentially on Mr Charman's identification of the appellant as the offender…

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 Gibbs, B.J. v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Gibbs, B.J. v. The Queen [1993] FCA 969
Case: [1993] FCA 969
Decision Date: 21 DECEMBER 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gibbs, B.J. v The Queen involved the appellant, B.J. Gibbs, appealing against his conviction for armed robbery. The central dispute was the sufficiency and reliability of the identification evidence, as well as the rejection of his alibi defence, which the jury considered in determining his guilt. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which examined whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsatisfactory, and if the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's decision.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the identification evidence presented was reliable enough to support the jury's verdict and whether the rejection of the appellant's alibi evidence rendered the verdict unsafe. The court also needed to consider whether the trial judge's directions to the jury on the evaluation of evidence were appropriate, and whether any errors in those directions could have influenced the jury's decision.

In its reasoning, the court held that the identification evidence, while not perfect, was sufficiently reliable to support the jury's verdict. The court found that the jury was entitled to place weight on the identification evidence, especially given the corroborative nature of some of the testimony. Additionally, the court noted that the rejection of the alibi evidence was a matter for the jury, and the court was not inclined to interfere with the jury's assessment of that evidence. The court concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsatisfactory, and the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, affirming the conviction of the appellant, B.J. Gibbs. The court did not find any basis to interfere with the jury's decision or the trial judge's handling of the case. The decision underscores the high threshold for overturning a jury's verdict based on the sufficiency of evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.