Murdoch v The Queen

Case [2007] NTCCA 1

Murdoch v The Queen [2007] NTCCA 1

PARTIES:MURDOCH, BRADLEY JOHN

v

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO:CA 2/06 (20215807)

DELIVERED:  10 JANUARY 2007

HEARING DATES:  12, 13, 14, 15 DECEMBER 2006

JUDGMENT OF:  ANGEL ACJ,  RILEY J & OLSSON AJ

APPEAL FROM:  NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT, 20215807, 15 December 2005

CATCHWORDS:

Appeal – Proviso – Application of proviso – Whether miscarriage of justice

Evidence – Identification – Whether spontaneous – Victim identifying appellant suspect as her assailant from photograph of appellant on internet

Evidence – Identification – Photoboard – Whether Trial Judge erred in permitting evidence of photoboard identification in circumstances where previous out of court identification admissible

Evidence – Identification - Dock identification – Whether Trial Judge erred in permitting evidence of dock identification in circumstances where previous out of court identification admissible

Evidence – By victim of similarities between dog at crime scene and accused’s dog in photograph – Whether admissible in the circumstances

Evidence – Possession, ownership and use of guns by accused – Circumstantial evidence adverse to him – Whether relevant or should have been excluded by Trial Judge as matter of discretion

Evidence – Accused denied that he was person in truckstop video – Edwards direction by Trial Judge – Whether appropriate in circumstances

Evidence – Expert evidence - Admissibility – Opinion evidence –– Facial Mapping and Body Mapping – Whether ‘specialised knowledge’

Evidence – Expert evidence – Qualifications of witness as expert – Whether Body Mapping proper subject matter for expert testimony

Evidence – Expert evidence – Opinion evidence – Truckstop video – Whether expert witness who did not know appellant could identify him as man in video – Evidence of identity wrongly admitted

Evidence – Opinion evidence – Non-expert opinion – Identity – Truckstop video – evidence of witnesses who knew appellant identifying him as man in video – Whether matter for jury – Evidence properly admitted – Jury to decide weight

Evidence – Identification – Truckstop video – Evidence of witnesses who knew appellant identifying him as man in video – Whether matter for jury – Evidence properly admitted – Jury to decide weight

Sentencing – Murder – Indeterminate sentence with non-parole period – Whether non-parole period manifestly excessive



Statutes Referred to:

Criminal Code (NT) s 411, 429(2)

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 79

Sentencing Act s 53A

Cases Cited:

Alexander v The Queen (1981)145 CLR 395

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2002) [2003] 1 Cr App R 321

Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180

Clare & Peach v R [1995] 2 Cr App R 333

Darkan v The Queen (2006) 163 A Crim R 80

Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc 509 US 579 (1993) 
         Davies and Cody v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170
         Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593
         Hallam & Karger v R (1985) 42 SASR 126
         Hontestroom (Owners) v Sagaporack…

Continue reading Murdoch v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Murdoch v The Queen [2007] NTCCA 1
Case
[2007] NTCCA 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Murdoch v The Queen* concerned an appeal against convictions for murder and the subsequent sentence. The appellant, Murdoch, sought to challenge various evidentiary rulings made during his trial, as well as the severity of his sentence. The appeal was heard by Angel ACJ and Riley JJ, with Olsson AJ participating.

The central legal issues before the appellate court involved the admissibility of several forms of identification evidence, including a spontaneous identification from an internet photograph, a photoboard identification, and a dock identification. The court also considered the admissibility of evidence concerning similarities between the appellant's dog and a dog at the crime scene, the relevance of evidence regarding the appellant's possession and use of guns, and the appropriateness of an *Edwards* direction concerning the appellant's denial of being the person in a truckstop video. Furthermore, the admissibility and weight of expert evidence on facial and body mapping, and non-expert opinion evidence identifying the appellant in the truckstop video were scrutinised. Finally, the court was asked to determine if the indeterminate sentence with a non-parole period was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against convictions, finding no miscarriage of justice that warranted setting aside the jury's verdict. While acknowledging that some evidence might have been admitted in questionable circumstances, the court applied the proviso, concluding that the evidence, taken as a whole, was so strong that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. The appeal against the sentence was also dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for extension of time and leave to argue grounds 6 and 7 allowed.

2. All other applications for extension of time and leave to argue grounds of appeal against convictions are dismissed.

3. Appeal against convictions dismissed.

4. Appeal against sentence 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.