THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- BILOS [2008] WASC 226
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASC 226 | |
| Case No: | INS:78/2008 | 26 SEPTEMBER 2008 | |
| Coram: | HASLUCK J | 26/09/08 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | No case submission dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA ROBERT GEORGE BILOS |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Evidence Identification by digiboard Admissibility of positive and negative identification Delay between commission of offence and identification by witness Factors regarding reliability and weight of evidence can be addressed by direction to jury Warning of forensic disadvantage to accused Effect of delay upon process of recollection Relevance and probative value of admissible evidence Whether limited probative value of evidence is outweighed by prejudicial effect No case to answer submission dismissed |
Legislation: | Criminal Procedure Act 2004 s 98(2) |
Case References: | Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395 Dhanhoa v The Queen [2003] HCA 40 Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555 Hunt v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 37 Kelly v The Queen [2002] WASCA 134 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 Mule v The Queen [2002] WASCA 101 Mundarra Doolan Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650 Pitkin (1995) 80 A Crim R 302 Roser v The Queen (2001) 24 WAR 254 State of Western Australia v Wood [2008] WASCA 81 Winmar v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 244; 35 WAR 159 Yarran v The Queen [2001] WASCA 52 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Prosecutor
AND
ROBERT GEORGE BILOS
Accused
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Evidence - Identification by digiboard - Admissibility of positive and negative identification - Delay between commission of offence and identification by witness - Factors regarding reliability and weight of evidence can be addressed by direction to jury - Warning of forensic disadvantage to accused - Effect of delay upon process of recollection - Relevance and probative value of admissible evidence - Whether limited probative value of evidence is outweighed by prejudicial effect - No case to answer submission dismissed
Legislation:
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 s 98(2)
(Page 2)
Result:
No case submission dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Prosecutor : Mr L Hobson
Accused : Mr P J Urquhart
Solicitors:
Prosecutor : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Accused : Hammond Worthington
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395
Dhanhoa v The Queen [2003] HCA 40
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555
Hunt v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 37
Kelly v The Queen [2002] WASCA 134
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654
Mule v The Queen [2002]…
Continue reading Judgment Suppressed
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Judgment Suppressed [2008] WASC 226
- Case
- [2008] WASC 226
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Judgment Suppressed, the court heard an appeal from the appellant against a conviction for armed robbery. The case involved a complex analysis of the admissibility and weight of evidence provided by a witness who identified the appellant through a digital board. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of the witness's identification, which occurred several years after the offence, was admissible and, if so, what weight should be given to it. The court had to consider factors such as the reliability of the identification, the delay in the identification process, and the potential prejudicial effect on the appellant.
The court addressed the admissibility of the evidence by examining the reliability of the identification process and the delay between the offence and the identification. It noted that the reliability and weight of the evidence could be assessed through directions to the jury and that a warning should be given to the jury about the potential forensic disadvantage to the accused. The court also considered the effect of the delay on the process of recollection and the relevance and probative value of the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence, despite its limited probative value, was not outweighed by any prejudicial effect. Therefore, the evidence was admissible and could be considered by the jury in determining the appellant's guilt.
Following its analysis, the court dismissed the no case to answer submission made by the appellant. The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient for the case to proceed to the jury. The appeal against the conviction was ultimately dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court's decision highlights the importance of a thorough assessment of the admissibility and weight of identification evidence, particularly in cases where there is a significant delay between the offence and the identification.
The court addressed the admissibility of the evidence by examining the reliability of the identification process and the delay between the offence and the identification. It noted that the reliability and weight of the evidence could be assessed through directions to the jury and that a warning should be given to the jury about the potential forensic disadvantage to the accused. The court also considered the effect of the delay on the process of recollection and the relevance and probative value of the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence, despite its limited probative value, was not outweighed by any prejudicial effect. Therefore, the evidence was admissible and could be considered by the jury in determining the appellant's guilt.
Following its analysis, the court dismissed the no case to answer submission made by the appellant. The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient for the case to proceed to the jury. The appeal against the conviction was ultimately dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court's decision highlights the importance of a thorough assessment of the admissibility and weight of identification evidence, particularly in cases where there is a significant delay between the offence and the identification.
Orders
Orders of the court
No case submission dismissed
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.