P. Mickelberg v The Queen; R. Mickelberg v The Queen

Case

[1988] HCATrans 284


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
P. Mickelberg v The Queen; R. Mickelberg v The Queen [1988] HCATrans 284 [1988] HCATrans 284

CaseChat Overview and Summary

These proceedings before the High Court of Australia concerned appeals by P. Mickelberg and R. Mickelberg against their convictions. The central dispute revolved around the prosecution's case, which relied on fingerprint evidence allegedly lifted from a bank. The appellants argued that there was no evidence presented at trial or on appeal to establish the existence of a cast of Raymond Mickelberg's right index finger capable of being used as an instrument to create the fingerprint in question in July 1982.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in its findings regarding the existence of a replica finger at the time the fingerprint was allegedly made. Specifically, the court had to consider the evidence presented at trial and on appeal concerning the taking of casts or replicas of Raymond Mickelberg's finger and whether such an item, capable of producing the fingerprint, existed on 15 July 1982.

The court considered the judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeal, which had addressed the submission that no evidence existed of a suitable replica finger. Justice Pidgeon noted that there was evidence to indicate an artificial finger of the required quality was not in existence at the time. Justice Olney and Justice Wallace found that no dispute existed that silicone castings capable of producing a good representation of Raymond Mickelberg's fingerprint had been made since the trial. Crucially, they found that at no time, either at trial or on appeal, was it asserted or suggested that any cast or replica of Raymond Mickelberg's right index finger capable of producing a representation of his fingerprint existed on 15 July 1982. The only evidence concerning the timing of any replica indicated it was made long after the appellants were arrested, a concession made by Peter Mickelberg's counsel on appeal. Therefore, the Court of Criminal Appeal concluded there was no new evidence pointing to the possibility that the fingerprint was other than a mark made by Raymond Mickelberg's natural finger.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law

  • Evidence

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Charge

  • Sentencing

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0