Legal Research
Cases
Peterson (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Peterson (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Case [2014] VSCA 111 6 June 2014

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Interlocutory Orders

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0094

LEO PETERSON (A PSEUDONYM)[1]	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the appellant.

---

JUDGES	PRIEST and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	6 June 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT	6 June 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2014] VSCA 111
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v [Peterson] (Ruling, 20 May 2014, Judge Gamble)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Interlocutory appeal – Review of the trial judge's refusal to certify with respect to interlocutory decision – Identification evidence – Applicant arraigned and pleaded not guilty to an indictment containing a charge of intentionally causing serious injury – Complainant identified the applicant from a photograph on Facebook – Whether probative value of identification evidence outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice – Trial judge refused to exclude the identification evidence – Application was made for certification – Certification refused – Application to review certification decision refused – Interlocutory decision plainly correct – Whether reasons for granting leave ‘clearly outweigh any disruption to trial’ – Application for review – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) ss 295 (2)–(3), 296, 297 (2).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr R F Edney with Mr J L Podmore	Doogue O’Brien George
For the Crown	Ms F L Dalziel with Mr N B Batten	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BEACH JA:

Introduction

As we will shortly describe in more detail, the applicant has been arraigned in the County Court on an indictment which charges him with intentionally causing serious injury and other charges. He has pleaded not guilty. His trial has been adjourned pending the outcome of his application in this Court.

The present application is made pursuant to 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (‘the Act’). It seeks to review the refusal of the trial judge to certify under s 295 (3) of the Act. There is a single ground for review which asserts that the trial judge ‘erred in determining under s 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused, and admitting evidence of identification by the complainant through inquiries made on Facebook’. (Comprehension of the ground requires some understanding of the evidence in the case, a matter to which we will later turn.)

For the reasons that follow, we would refuse the application.

Principles governing the application

In circumstances that we will later describe in more detail, the applicant asked the judge to certify pursuant to s 295 (3) (a) of the Act. His Honour refused to do so. Thus in determining the application, this Court is required, by s 296 (4) of the Act, to ’consider the matters referred to in section 295 (3)’; and ’if satisfied as required by section 297, [the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Peterson (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Peterson v The Queen [2014] VSCA 111
Case: [2014] VSCA 111
Decision Date: 6 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal considered an application for review of an interlocutory decision in a criminal case. The applicant, Peterson, was arraigned on a charge of intentionally causing serious injury. Peterson pleaded not guilty, and the complainant identified Peterson from a photograph on Facebook. The trial judge refused to exclude the identification evidence, and Peterson sought to appeal the trial judge's refusal to certify the interlocutory decision. The issue before the Court was whether the probative value of the identification evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and if the trial judge's refusal to exclude the evidence was plainly correct.

The Court considered the relevant statutory provisions under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic). The Court held that the trial judge's decision was plainly correct, and that the reasons for granting leave to appeal did not clearly outweigh any disruption to the trial. The Court found that the identification evidence was highly probative, and the potential prejudice to Peterson did not outweigh the probative value of the evidence. The Court concluded that the application for review was not well-founded, and dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal considered the statutory provisions under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) and the principles of criminal law relevant to interlocutory appeals. The Court found that the trial judge's decision was plainly correct and that the reasons for granting leave to appeal did not clearly outweigh any disruption to the trial. The Court held that the identification evidence was highly probative, and the potential prejudice to Peterson did not outweigh the probative value of the evidence.

The Court dismissed the application for review and affirmed the trial judge's decision to refuse to exclude the identification evidence. The Court held that the identification evidence was properly admitted, and that the trial should proceed as scheduled. The Court did not make any orders with respect to costs.

Orders