Hayes v Burgoyne - [2003] NTSC 62

Hayes v Burgoyne [2003] NTSC 62
PARTIES:HAYES, Charles
v

BURGOYNE, Robert Roland

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 70 of 2002
DELIVERED:  30 May 2003
HEARING DATES:  6 May 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
CATCHWORDS:
EVIDENCE
Justices appeal – appeal against conviction - photoboard identification – warnings to be observed by Magistrates.
Criminal Code1999 (NT), s 212(2), s 277 and s 188(2)
Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555 at 561; Grbic v Pitkethly (1992) 110 ALR 577 at p 588; Parker v Espinoza (1996) 85 A Crim R 336 at p 340, considered; Alexander v R (1980) 145 CLR 395 at 426, considered.
Sharrett v Gill (1993) 65 A Crim R 44, referred.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:S O’Connell
Respondent:  C Roberts
Solicitors:
Appellant:CAALAS
Respondent:  DPP
Judgment category classification:      B
Judgment ID Number:  mar0327
Number of pages:  13

mar0327
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Hayes v Burgoyne [2003] NTSC 62
No. JA 70 of 2002

BETWEEN:
CHARLES HAYES

Appellant
AND:
ROBERT ROLAND BURGOYNE

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 30 May 2003)

Appeal against conviction. The appellant was convicted after trial before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Alice Springs for assault and associated criminal conduct. The identity of the assailant was the issue.

The victim was in a car park preparing to go shopping at Coles and was arranging the handle on a pram in which one of her young children was placed. The other child, a three year old, was standing nearby. The victim looked up and saw the offender who had approached her and then demanded money, which she refused. The offender pulled a knife from a trouser pocket and extended his left arm towards the victim and again demanded money. She was concerned to protect her elder child and placed the child behind her, but without taking her eyes off the offender. She stood her ground, brushed away the offender’s arm and punched him. He fell down and she gathered up the children, departed and reported the matter to the police.

Her evidence was that she had looked into the offender’s face when he approached and that he came within a metre of her. The tip of the knife was extended to about 10 centimetres from her chin before she pushed it aside. In her opinion the time which elapsed when he first approached until the incident was over was one or two minutes but accepted it was all over fairly quickly. The event took place in broad daylight.
The victim’s evidence of her recollection of the description of the man as she had given it to the police was that she could not remember his footwear; he was slightly taller than she, about a head taller; he had scruffy, pointy, messy, spiky hair, it was all ratty like it had not been taken care of, he had red squinty eyes…

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 Hayes v Burgoyne

Details

AGLC: Hayes v Burgoyne [2003] NTSC 62
Case: [2003] NTSC 62
Decision Date: 30 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hayes v Burgoyne arose from a conviction made in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The defendant, Burgoyne, was convicted of armed robbery, with the primary evidence against him being a photoboard identification made by the victim, Hayes. Burgoyne challenged the admissibility and reliability of the identification evidence, arguing that the process used was inherently unreliable and that the court failed to give appropriate warnings to the magistrate regarding the evidence's limitations. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the legal standards governing photoboard identifications and whether the trial court adequately cautioned the magistrate about the potential pitfalls of such evidence.

The central legal issues revolved around the procedures and protocols that should be followed when a photoboard identification is presented as evidence in a criminal trial. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the trial court properly informed the magistrate about the risks of misidentification, the importance of an impartial identification procedure, and the need for caution in relying on such evidence. The court also needed to assess whether the photoboard identification procedure in this case complied with the standards required to ensure its admissibility and reliability.

In addressing these issues, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not adequately warn the magistrate about the inherent unreliability of photoboard identifications. The court emphasized that when such evidence is presented, the trial judge must provide explicit instructions to the magistrate about the risks of misidentification and the need for a cautious approach. The court found that the trial judge's warnings were insufficient, as they did not sufficiently highlight the potential for error in photoboard identifications. Consequently, the court concluded that the magistrate's reliance on the identification evidence was misplaced, leading to an unsafe and unsatisfactory conviction. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

Orders