R v Brookes - [1992] QCA 103

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 103

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 317 of 1991
Before the Court of Appeal

The President
Mr Justice Davies
Mr Justice Derrington

T H E Q U E E N

DAVID LESLIE BROOKES
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Delivered the 13th day of May, 1992

On 5 November 1991, the appellant was convicted in the

District Court at Brisbane with stealing with actual violence criminal robbed the Cordelia Street Antique Centre. During the course of the robbery, the store-owner and an employee were held at gunpoint for about 6 to 7 minutes. The robber did not seek to hide or disguise his face and the witnesses had a clear view of his features for a significant period.

whilst armed with a dangerous weapon and, on 8th November
1991, he was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment. He has
appealed to this court against his conviction.

Later that day, a Police Technical Officer compiled an

artist's impression of the criminal with the assistance of the witnesses. compiled a collection of twelve photographs including a photograph of the appellant, which was the fifth photograph in the "line up".	On the following day, Monday 29 April, a police officer
At approximately 9.15 a.m. that day, the gallery of

photographs was shown first to the employee and subsequently
to the store-owner, each of whom separately identified the

appellant as the robber.

Shortly afterwards, the police interviewed the appellant

and executed a search warrant at his residence. He denied
committing the robbery and said that he had been home
throughout the Sunday on which it occurred except for a brief
period during which he went to the local shop to buy a

newspaper.

At the trial, the shopkeeper said that the appellant had

visited the shop at about 9.45 a.m. to 10.00 a.m., on the
morning of the robbery. However, the distance from the shop
where the appellant brought a newspaper to the premises which
were robbed is not great and could be travelled by car in less
than 10 minutes. It could not be said that the evidence of
the shopkeeper is inconsistent with the appellant's presence

at the other premises at the time when the robbery occurred.

None of the stolen property was recovered, and there was

no other evidence linking the appellant to the robbery.

At the beginning of the trial, Counsel then appearing for

the appellant objected to the admission of the identification
evidence but the objection was overruled. The application was
renewed but again refused after the witnesses to the robbery

had given evidence.

No complaint is made of the summing up, but it is

contended in this court that the evidence ought to have been excluded or, alternatively, that the jury's verdict that the appellant was guilty of the offence based only upon such

evidence is unsafe and unsatisfactory and ought to be quashed.

Both contentions are based upon a proposition that most

of the other photographs in the collection shown to…

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 Brookes

Details

AGLC: R v Brookes [1992] QCA 103
Case: [1992] QCA 103
Decision Date: 13/05/1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v. David Leslie Brookes, the appellant was convicted in the District Court at Brisbane of stealing with actual violence and armed robbery at the Cordelia Street Antique Centre. The conviction was appealed to the Supreme Court of Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant's conviction should be upheld given the evidence presented at trial, specifically the identification evidence provided by the store-owner and an employee, who identified the appellant from a photographic lineup. The appellant's counsel argued that the photographic lineup was unfair as most of the other photographs did not match the verbal descriptions given by the witnesses of the offender, and that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the photographic lineup was fair and whether the identification evidence was reliable. The court examined the photographs and determined that there were sufficient photographs of individuals who were generally similar to the appellant, and there was nothing in the lineup that drew undue attention to the appellant's photograph. The court held that the collection of photographs was fair and that the identification evidence was reliable. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of twelve years imprisonment were upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of twelve years imprisonment were upheld.

Orders