R v BBA - [2006] QCA 234

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v BBA [2006] QCA 234

PARTIES:

R
v
BBA
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 276 of 2005
DC No 37 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

23 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 May 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS - IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE - GENERALLY - appellant convicted by jury of one count of unlawful deprivation of liberty and one count of common assault - appellant and complainant both children - appellant argued learned trial judge had not sufficiently warned jury about convicting on basis of evidence of purported identification of accused child by adult witness - witness said photograph on photo board "looked most like" appellant - additional evidence capable of identifying appellant as person who assaulted complainant - judge gave direction on use of witness's evidence - witness's evidence was subsequently read to jury but learned trial judge did not repeat the directions - whether learned trial judge's directions were inadequate and whether there is reason to doubt propriety of the verdict

Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395, cited
Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427, cited
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555, cited
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15, cited
Pitkin v R (1995) 130 ALR 35, considered
R v DAK [2005] QCA 211; CA No 45 of 2005, 17 June 2005, cited
R v Davidson [2000] QCA 39; CA No 369 of 1999, 28 July 2000, cited
R v Reiken [2006] QCA 178; CA No 7 of 2006, 26 May 2006, cited
R v Zullo [1993] 2 Qd R 572; [1993] QCA 208, cited

COUNSEL:

S G Durward SC for the appellant
J A Greggery for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: The appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Keane JA.

KEANE JA: On 14 October 2005, the appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury after a trial conducted in the Childrens Court of Queensland held at Townsville of one count of unlawful deprivation of liberty and one count of common assault. The offences were alleged to have been committed on 18 June 2005. The appellant was born on 2 November 1990. At the time of the trial the appellant was 14 years of age.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal which raised a number of grounds of challenge to his conviction. Only one of these grounds was supported by argument on the hearing of the appeal and the other grounds of appeal were abandoned. The appellant argued that 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 R v BBA

Details

AGLC: R v BBA [2006] QCA 234
Case: [2006] QCA 234
Decision Date: 23 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was convicted by a jury of one count of unlawful deprivation of liberty and one count of common assault. Both the appellant and the complainant were children at the time of the offence. The appellant challenged the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury concerning the evidence of an adult witness who purported to identify the appellant as the person who assaulted the complainant. The appellant argued that the trial judge did not sufficiently warn the jury about convicting on the basis of the witness's evidence, which only stated that the photograph on the photo board "looked most like" the appellant. The appellant submitted that the trial judge's directions were inadequate and that there was reason to doubt the propriety of the verdict.

The court considered the appellant's arguments and examined the adequacy of the trial judge's directions. The court held that the trial judge gave sufficient directions to the jury on the use of the witness's evidence, and that the witness's evidence was capable of identifying the appellant as the person who assaulted the complainant. The court noted that the trial judge's directions were not repeated when the witness's evidence was read to the jury, but held that this did not amount to an inadequacy in the directions. The court also considered the additional evidence that was capable of identifying the appellant as the person who assaulted the complainant. The court held that the jury was properly directed on the use of the witness's evidence and that the verdict was properly based on the evidence as a whole.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and that there was no reason to doubt the propriety of the verdict. The court noted that the jury was properly directed on the use of the witness's evidence and that the verdict was properly based on the evidence as a whole. The court also held that the additional evidence was capable of identifying the appellant as the person who assaulted the complainant. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.

CITATION:	R v BBA [2006] QCA 234
PARTIES:	R v BBA (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 276 of 2005 DC No 37 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Childrens Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	23 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 May 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Keane JA and Jones J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS - IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE - GENERALLY - appellant convicted by jury of one count of unlawful deprivation of liberty and one count of common assault - appellant and complainant both children - appellant argued learned trial judge had not sufficiently warned jury about convicting on basis of evidence of purported identification of accused child by adult witness - witness said photograph on photo board "looked most like" appellant - additional evidence capable of identifying appellant as person who assaulted complainant - judge gave direction on use of witness's evidence - witness's evidence was subsequently read to jury but learned trial judge did not repeat the directions - whether learned trial judge's directions were inadequate and whether there is reason to doubt propriety of the verdict Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395, cited Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427, cited Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555, cited Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15, cited Pitkin v R (1995) 130 ALR 35, considered R v DAK [2005] QCA 211; CA No 45 of 2005, 17 June 2005, cited R v Davidson [2000] QCA 39; CA No 369 of 1999, 28 July 2000, cited R v Reiken [2006] QCA 178; CA No 7 of 2006, 26 May 2006, cited R v Zullo [1993] 2 Qd R 572; [1993] QCA 208, cited
COUNSEL:	S G Durward SC for the appellant J A Greggery for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent