Ida v The Queen

The applicant, Ida, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The dispute concerned the applicant's conviction, with the applicant arguing that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The High Court was required to consider four grounds for special leave. These included whether the High Court should intervene when a Court of Criminal Appeal, in assessing an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict, allegedly misapprehended or got the facts wrong. Secondly, the applicant questioned whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in concluding that the impressiveness of an identification witness could overcome issues of reliability, rather than veracity. Thirdly, the applicant argued that merely asking if a jury's conviction was reasonably open was insufficient when a verdict was challenged as unsafe and unsatisfactory, without applying further established principles. Finally, the applicant raised whether the consequences of a trial misdirection, not raised at the time, should be considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal when assessing the safety of a verdict.

The applicant contended that the Court of Criminal Appeal failed to properly consider all relevant facts when assessing the identification evidence, specifically omitting the critical factor of distance in conjunction with other circumstances. The applicant also argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal's reasoning regarding the impressiveness of the identification witness was flawed, suggesting that such impressiveness could not cure a problem with the reliability of the identification. Furthermore, the applicant submitted that the Court of Criminal Appeal had not applied the full test for an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. The applicant also raised a misdirection at trial, which was not identified as such at the time, and argued that its impact on the jury's assessment of reasonable doubt should have been considered.