Legal Research
Cases
Powers v The Queen

Powers v The Queen

Case [2000] NTCCA 2 6 June 2000

Type to search within this case.

Powers v R [2000] NTCCA 2
PARTIES:POWERS, Justin Roy

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL, SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
FILE NO:CA3/99
DELIVERED:  6 June 2000
HEARING DATES:  26 May 1999, 17 April 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ, ANGEL & RILEY JJ.
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence – identification of accused a central issue – probative value – whether verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory.
Identification of accused by principal Crown witness prior to the dock identification at the committal proceedings – prosecution led the dock identification during the committal proceedings – evidence of this incident not led at trial from any other witness – admissible to what the witness said and the strength of her identification, but not to the truth of what she said.
R v Collings & Ors (1976) NZLR 104 at p 114, applied and cited with approval by R v Sutton, unreported SCSA, CCA, 31 August 1990.
Bliesner v The Queen (1991) 1 Leg Rep p C1 referred to.
Duty on Crown to adduce evidence from other witnesses of the out of court identification – prosecutor in error
R v Gorham (1997) 68 SASR 505 at 509.
Basha inquiry not sought at trial (1989) 30 A Crim R 337
Gestures by witness going to identification even if innocently done – jury not dispelled of effect of gestures after the trial Judge’s instructions – summing up amounted to a misdirection.
Craig v R (1933) 49 CLR 429 at 445, applied.
Davies and Cody v R (1937) 57 CLR 170 at 182, applied.
Kelleher v R (1974) 131 CLR 534 at 550-551, applied.
Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555 at 561, applied.
Alexander v R (1981) 145 CLR 395, referred to.
Grbic v Pitkethly (1992) 110 ALR 577, referred to.
R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 at 228, considered.
Whether verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory.
Criminal Code 1983 (NT), s 411
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 450 at 492-493, applied.
Davies and Cody v The King, supra, at 180, applied.
Upon the whole of the evidence it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:Mr J Tippett
Respondent:  Mr W J Karczewski
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions (NT)
Judgment category classification:      A
Judgment ID Number:  mar20010
Number of pages:  31

Mar20010
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Powers v R [2000] NTCCA 2
No. CA3 of 1999

BETWEEN:
JUSTIN ROY POWERS

Appellant
AND:
THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ, ANGEL & RILEY JJ.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 6 June 2000)
MARTIN CJ:

The appellant was found guilty by a jury on 10 December 1998 for that on 10 June 1995, at Darwin, he unlawfully caused grievous harm to Stefan Watkin.

Leave to appeal under the grounds dealt with in these reasons…

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 Powers v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Powers v The Queen [2000] NTCCA 2
Case: [2000] NTCCA 2
Decision Date: 6 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Powers appealed his conviction for armed robbery. The central issue at trial was the identification of the appellant by the principal Crown witness. The prosecution had led evidence of a pre-trial identification of the appellant by this witness during committal proceedings. This evidence was not led at trial through any other witness.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the admission of the pre-trial identification evidence was permissible, and if so, what weight it could be given. Further, the Court had to consider whether, in light of the identification evidence, the verdict of the jury was unsafe or unsatisfactory.

The Court held that evidence of the pre-trial identification was admissible to demonstrate what the witness said and the strength of her identification at that earlier stage. However, it was not admissible to prove the truth of her identification. The Court considered the potential for this type of evidence to unduly influence the jury and the importance of ensuring that any identification evidence relied upon by the prosecution was reliable. The Court then assessed the overall evidence presented at trial to determine if the conviction was safe and satisfactory.

Orders