R v Chatters - [1995] QCA 68

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 068
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 428 of 1994.

Brisbane

[R v. Chatters]

T H E Q U E E N

MICHAEL JOSEPH CHATTERS

(Appellant)

____________________________________________________________________

Fitzgerald P.
Pincus J.A.
McPherson J.A.

____________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 15/03/1995

Judgment of the Court

____________________________________________________________________

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED
____________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:CRIMINAL LAW - conviction - rape - identification evidence - dock identification, television, photographic - other circumstantial evidence - discretion to admit evidence of blood stains - whether unsatisfactory verdict.

Hamood (1987) 46 S.A.S.R. 340.

Grbic v. Pitkethly (1992) 38 F.C.R. 95

Counsel:Mr B W Farr for the appellant.
Mr R Martin for the respondent.

Solicitors:Legal Aid Office for the appellant. Director of Prosecutions for the respondent.

Hearing date:30 November 1994.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 15/03/1995

The appellant was convicted of rape, after a trial in the District Court, and has appealed on a number of grounds, only two of which were pressed. First, it was said on the appellant's behalf that evidence of a dock identification by the complainant should not have been admitted. Secondly, counsel argued that the judge should, apparently as a matter of discretion, have declined to allow the Crown to adduce evidence that a certain blood stain was found on the appellant's underpants; the blood was found on analysis to be of a composition consistent with the complainant's blood and that of only a small proportion of the general population.

The Crown case was that on the night of the rape the complainant went to a Rockhampton nightclub where she was approached by the appellant; she gave a description of him. Then the complainant left that nightclub and walked to another; the appellant spoke to her while she was walking between the two. At the second nightclub the appellant spoke to the complainant again; she left a little later and, to put it briefly, she was attacked by the appellant and savagely raped. She was taken to hospital and spent a week there.

After the complainant had been in hospital for "a couple of days" she saw the evening news on a television set; the appellant was depicted being taken out of a police station after having been located in Mackay. The complainant gave evidence that she knew the person depicted as the one who had attacked her. At the trial the complainant identified the man in the dock, the appellant, as the rapist and it was argued that this should not have been allowed.

Apart from the identification of the appellant in the manner mentioned - i.e. the observation on the television and in the dock - it emerged that the complainant had been shown photographs of the appellant and had confirmed that he was the rapist. The basic identification was that on the television screen and the subsequent identifications of him in photographs and in court could not been regarded as having added much strength to the Crown case on the question of identification,…

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 Chatters

Details

AGLC: R v Chatters [1995] QCA 68
Case: [1995] QCA 68
Decision Date: 15/03/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Chatters saw Michael Joseph Chatters appeal against his conviction of rape. The central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge should have admitted evidence of a dock identification by the complainant and evidence of blood stains on the appellant's underpants. The complainant had initially identified Chatters from a television broadcast and subsequently confirmed this identification in the courtroom, after also recognising him from photographs. The appellant argued that these identifications were unreliable and should not have been admitted.

The Court considered the admissibility of dock identifications, noting that such evidence can be problematic but is permissible if there are other reliable identifications and corroborating evidence. The court held that the complainant's identification from the television broadcast was reliable, and the subsequent identifications in court and through photographs did not significantly add to the strength of the case. Furthermore, the Court found that the evidence of blood stains on the appellant's underpants, despite some issues with the handling of the sample, was admissible. The Court concluded that the discrepancies in the evidence were explainable without implying an attempt to fabricate evidence against the appellant. The Court found that the judge's discretion to admit the evidence was correctly exercised, and the verdict was safe and soundly based on the evidence presented.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction. The Court did not find merit in the arguments presented regarding the admissibility of the dock identification or the blood evidence, and therefore Chatters' appeal against his conviction was unsuccessful.

Orders