Knight v Brown

This appeal arises from a conviction for the offence of robbery, where the appellant, Jason Kenneth Knight, was convicted by a Magistrate of robbing a person in Manuka, ACT. The appellant appealed against the conviction on the grounds that the identification evidence was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and that the Magistrate had erred in relying on the evidence of the sighting of the offender getting into a white car. The respondent conceded that there was no direct evidence of this. The appellant argued that the identification evidence was unsafe because the victim was told by police that he was to see photographs that would include a photograph of the police suspect who had been "picked up", and that the selection of photographs shown to him contained only two persons who could be said to be red-headed, being his primary description of the offender, with only one photograph being of a person with striking red hair.

The court held that the evidence of identification was tainted by two fundamental errors, being that the victim was told by police that he was to see photographs that would include a photograph of the police suspect who had been "picked up", and that the selection of photographs shown to him contained only two of persons who could be said to be red-headed, that being his primary description of the offender, with only one photograph being of a person with striking red hair. It seems to the court that these two errors have so contaminated the visual identification that it would be unsafe and unsatisfactory to allow the conviction to stand. Although the learned Magistrate took some comfort from what she believed to be identification of the offender escaping the scene in an identified vehicle, it was conceded that the evidence was not as strong as that, and indeed depended on a description obtained by Ms Connor of what another person said was a car registration number.

The court orders that the appeal be upheld and the Magistrate's order convicting the appellant be set aside.