Gooda v Burrows - [2020] ACTSC 187

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Gooda v Burrows
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 187
Hearing Date:	8 July 2020
DecisionDate:	8 July 2020
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Appeal allowed. All verdicts of guilty set aside and substituted with verdicts of not guilty.
Catchwords:	APPEAL – APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATES COURT – Whether verdict unreasonable – Identification evidence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 318(2) Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 116, 165 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 208(1)(b) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) s 7(1) Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) s 20(1)
Cases Cited:	Burrows v Gooda (ACT Magistrates Court, Acting Chief Magistrate Theakston, 1 April 2020) ED v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 10 Featherstone v The Queen; Bloxsome v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 33 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Texts Cited:	Stephen Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law (Thomson Reuters, 15^th ed, 2020)
Parties:	Nicholas Brian Gooda (Appellant) Scott Lindsay Burrows (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel J de Bruin (Appellant) C Wanigaratne (Respondent)
Solicitors Legal Aid ACT (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	SCA 19 of 2020
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Acting Chief Magistrate Theakston Date of Decision: 1 April 2020 Case Title: Burrows v Gooda Court File Number: CC 12730 of 2019 CC 12732 of 2019 CC 12733 of 2019

MURRELL CJ

Introduction

In the Magistrates Court, the appellant pleaded not guilty to charges that he had committed the following offences on 27 November 2019:

(a)Count 1: Dishonestly drive motor vehicle without consent, contrary to s 318(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT);
(b)Count 2: Drive in a way dangerous, contrary to s 7(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT); and

(c)Count 3: Drive motor vehicle with prescribed drug in oral fluid, contrary to s 20(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT).

On 1 April 2020, Acting Chief Magistrate Theakston (the Magistrate) found that the appellant was guilty of all offences.

The appellant appealed against the findings of guilt on the ground that they were unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The appeal

An appeal pursuant to s 208(1)(b) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) is by way of a rehearing. The question is “whether, upon the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury [or in this case, the Magistrate] to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty”: ED v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 10 at [43], referring to M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494–495.

Although the appeal was framed as an appeal on the basis that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory, as recently explained by the Court of Appeal in Featherstone v The Queen; Bloxsome v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 33, the real issue is whether the verdicts were unreasonable, and for that reason resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

As there was no issue about the credibility of the critical…

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 Gooda v Burrows

Details

AGLC: Gooda v Burrows [2020] ACTSC 187
Case: [2020] ACTSC 187
Decision Date: 8 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court was brought by the appellant, Mr Gooda, against the decision of the Magistrates Court, which had found him guilty of various charges related to an incident of assault. The respondent, Mr Burrows, had alleged that Mr Gooda assaulted him, and the case was determined by a magistrate without a jury. The core issue for the court was the reliability and admissibility of the identification evidence provided by Mr Burrows and whether the verdict was unreasonable given the evidence presented.

The central legal issue was whether the trial magistrate erred in accepting the identification evidence as sufficient to convict Mr Gooda. The court had to consider the circumstances under which the identification was made, the opportunity of the witness to view the assailant, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness's prior description of the assailant, the level of confidence demonstrated by the witness at the time of identification, and the time lapse between the incident and the identification. Additionally, the court examined whether there was any corroboration of the identification evidence by other witnesses or independent evidence.

The court found that the identification evidence was fraught with significant uncertainties and inconsistencies. The opportunity for Mr Burrows to observe Mr Gooda was limited, and the conditions under which the identification was made were not conducive to reliable identification. The court also noted that Mr Burrows's initial description of the assailant did not match Mr Gooda, and the confidence displayed by Mr Burrows at the identification parade was questionable. Given these factors, the court concluded that the magistrate's acceptance of the identification evidence as reliable and sufficient to convict Mr Gooda was unreasonable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and all verdicts of guilty were set aside, with verdicts of not guilty being entered in their place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed. All verdicts of guilty set aside and substituted with verdicts of not guilty.

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.