Paula v The Queen

The case of Paula v The Queen concerned an appeal against a conviction for a Dangerous Act contrary to s 154 of the Criminal Code, and two circumstances of aggravation. The applicant, Toiro Moses Paula, was convicted in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 21 April 2004. He sought an extension of time to appeal his conviction, which had been refused by a single judge. The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory heard the application for an extension of time and the substantive appeal in full.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, particularly in light of inconsistencies in witness testimony and the evidence provided by security camera footage. The Crown alleged that the applicant had ejected the deceased from a nightclub, and after the deceased fell and attempted to regain his footing on the steps, the applicant kicked him forcefully in the face, causing his head to strike the pavement and resulting in his death. The defence disputed that a kick had occurred, asserting the deceased's fatal injury resulted solely from the initial ejection and subsequent impact with the pavement.

The Court found that while eyewitness accounts were initially consistent with the Crown's narrative of a kick, significant inconsistencies emerged when compared to prior statements and preliminary hearing evidence. Furthermore, the security camera footage, which captured events in short intervals, did not record the alleged kick. The Court meticulously analysed the available images, concluding that the ejection occurred within a 1.875-second gap between two frames. It determined that the sequence of events required by the Crown – the ejection, the deceased's recovery and attempt to ascend the steps, the kick, and the subsequent propulsion of the deceased onto the footpath in a specific position – could not reasonably have occurred within that brief timeframe. The Court held that the security camera images positively rebutted the Crown's evidence of the kick, or at least created a reasonable doubt. Applying the principles from *M v The Queen*, the Court concluded that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt.

Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeal extended the time for filing the application for leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, quashed the finding of guilt, and directed that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered.