Re: SASHA GRBIC
And: GLEN THOMAS PITKETHLY
No. ACT G72 of 1991
FED No. 849
Number of pages - 68
Criminal Law
(1992) 110 ALR 577
(1992) 38 FCR 95
(1992) 65 A Crim R 12
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Sheppard(1), von Doussa(2) and Higgins(3) JJ.
CATCHWORDS
Criminal Law - identification of accused - summary trial by magistrate - accused convicted of two charges of assault - previously unknown to six witnesses who identified him - no identification parade - no other out of court identification - one witness deposed to seeing accused twice soon after assaults - no sighting of accused by remaining witnesses between assaults and trial 15 months later - five witnesses see accused in precincts of court on day of trial - lack of detail in this evidence - six witnesses make in court identification - no reference by magistrate to identification in precincts of court - adequacy of warning given by magistrate to himself about dangers of in court identification - whether convictions safe.
HEARING
CANBERRA
#DATE 11:9:1992
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. R. Thomas
Solicitor for the Appellant: Mr. J. Pappas
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. J. Ibbotson
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms. Amanda Tonkin
for the Director of Public Prosecutions
ORDER
The Court orders that:
1. The orders made by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 18 November 1991 be set aside.
2. In lieu thereof the appeal to the Supreme Court be allowed and the convictions of the appellant on two charges of assault dated 6 June 1991 be set aside.
3. There be liberty to the appellant to apply for an order for costs of the proceedings in the Supreme Court and in this Court if he be so advised.
4. Any submissions in support of an application for orders for costs are to be made in writing delivered to the Associate to Sheppard J. on or before 25 September 1992.
5. A copy of the sumbissions be served upon the solicitor for the respondent who is to respond to them on or before 9 October 1992.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
SHEPPARD J. This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Miles C.J.) in which that Court dismissed an appeal brought from the decision of a magistrate (Mr. Dainer) in which the magistrate had convicted the appellant on a charge of unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm and a further charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The offences are provided for in ss.54 and 59 respectively of the Crimes Act 1900.
The prosecution case was that in the early hours of the morning of 21 January 1990 the appellant and another person had launched an unprovoked attack on a group of young men "who were minding their own business" in Civic near the Private Bin Club. The person who…
Continue reading Grbic v Pitkethly
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Grbic, S. v Pitkethly, G.T. [1992] FCA 849 ((1992) 110 ALR 577; (1992) 38 FCR 95; (1992) 65 A Crim R 12)
- Case
- [1992] FCA 849
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court examined whether the trial magistrate adequately warned himself about the risks of in-court identifications, which could be unreliable due to the passage of time and the potential for suggestiveness. The court also considered the lack of detail in the evidence regarding the in-court identifications and the absence of an identification parade. The appellant's counsel argued that the convictions should be set aside due to the unreliability of the identification evidence. The court agreed that the identification evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions, as the magistrate did not properly consider the circumstances surrounding the identifications, and the evidence provided was not detailed enough to ensure reliability. Consequently, the High Court found that the appeal should be allowed, and the convictions were set aside.
In its orders, the High Court set aside the orders made by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and allowed the appeal. The convictions of the appellant on the two charges of assault were annulled. The appellant was granted liberty to apply for an order for costs of the proceedings in both the Supreme Court and the High Court, provided they were so advised. The court specified that any submissions in support of an application for costs should be made in writing and served on the respondent's solicitor, with a response deadline set for the respondent. The settlement and entry of orders were to be handled in accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
1. The orders made by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 18 November 1991 be set aside.
2. In lieu thereof the appeal to the Supreme Court be allowed and the convictions of the appellant on two charges of assault dated 6 June 1991 be set aside.
3. There be liberty to the appellant to apply for an order for costs of the proceedings in the Supreme Court and in this Court if he be so advised.
4. Any submissions in support of an application for orders for costs are to be made in writing delivered to the Associate to Sheppard J. on or before 25 September 1992.
5. A copy of the sumbissions be served upon the solicitor for the respondent who is to respond to them on or before 9 October 1992.
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.