Legal Research
Cases
Honeysett v The Queen

Honeysett v The Queen

Case [2013] NSWCCA 135 5 June 2013

Expert Evidence

Admissibility of Evidence

Appeal

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Honeysett v R [2013] NSWCCA 135
Hearing dates: 2 May 2013
Decision date: 05 June 2013
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Campbell J at [77]
Barr AJ at [78]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE - robbery of hotel - opinion evidence - s 79 Evidence Act 1995 - expert evidence of comparisons of CCTV images of offender and images of appellant - common anatomical features identified - evidence not given that there was "a high level of anatomical similarity" between offender and appellant - Morgan v R 215 A Crim R 33 distinguished - whether admissible as expert opinion evidence - whether based on specialised knowledge - whether witness qualified as an ad hoc expert
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - whether verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) [1987] HCA 58; 164 CLR 180
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; 243 CLR 588
Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72; 208 CLR 593
Li v The Queen [2003] NSWCCA 290; 139 A Crim R 281
Morgan v R [2011] NSWCCA 257; 215 A Crim R 33
Murdoch v The Queen [2007] NTCCA 1; 167 A Crim R 329
Smith v The Queen [2001] HCA 50; 206 CLR 650
R v Dastagir [2013] SASC 26
R v Gardner [2004] EWCA Crim 1639
R v Leung [1999] NSWCCA 287; 47 NSWLR 405
R v Tang [2006] NSWCCA 167; 65 NSWLR 681
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
The Queen v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; 228 CLR 618
The Queen v Keenan [2009] HCA 236; CLR 397
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Anthony Charles Honeysett (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
D Barrow (Appellant)
J H Pickering SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Blair Criminal Lawyers (Appellant)
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/60929
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Citation:

R v Anthony Charles Honeysett

Date of Decision:

2011-08-26 00:00:00

Before:

Bozic DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/60929

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: Late on 17 September 2008, after closing time, three armed men entered the Narrabeen Sands Hotel, confronted the three employees present and robbed the business of $4,800 in cash. One offender (referred to in this judgment as the "First Offender") carried a pink-handled hammer, another a shortened shotgun and the third "something long". Each offender was wearing dark clothes with "a white pillow or T-shirt wrapped around his head". They fled in what was later alleged to have been a stolen Audi RS 4 vehicle which bore separately stolen number plates.

Subsequently the appellant was charged with armed robbery contrary to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, it being alleged that he was the First Offender. After a plea of not guilty and a trial before a jury, he was convicted of the offence charged.…

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 Honeysett v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Honeysett v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 135
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 135
Decision Date: 05 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Honeysett v The Queen involved an appeal against a conviction for the robbery of a hotel. The primary issue before the court was whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence presented, particularly focusing on the admissibility and weight of expert opinion evidence regarding the comparison of CCTV images of the offender with images of the appellant. The court was required to determine if the opinion evidence was based on specialised knowledge and whether the witness was qualified as an ad hoc expert under section 79 of the Evidence Act 1995.

The court carefully considered the nature of the expert opinion provided, which involved identifying common anatomical features between the CCTV images of the offender and the appellant, without concluding that there was a high level of anatomical similarity. This analysis distinguished the current case from Morgan v R, where the court had found that the opinion evidence was not based on specialised knowledge. In the present case, the court found that the witness's opinion was indeed based on specialised knowledge, as it involved the analysis of CCTV footage and the identification of anatomical features. The court further held that the witness was qualified as an ad hoc expert under the Evidence Act.

The court concluded that the opinion evidence was properly admitted and provided a valid basis for the jury's verdict. It found that the verdict was neither unreasonable nor insupportable, and therefore dismissed the appeal. The decision underscores the importance of the proper qualification and basis of expert opinion evidence in criminal cases, particularly in the context of CCTV image comparisons.

Orders