R v Janissen

Case [2013] QCA 279

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Janissen [2013] QCA 279

PARTIES:

R
v
JANISSEN, Christopher
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 298 of 2012
DC No 981 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 September 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 July 2013

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Holmes and Gotterson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where the appellant was convicted following a trial of four offences relating to entering a dwelling at night whilst in company and armed, and assaulting and robbing the occupants – where the appellant upon conviction was sentenced to a head sentence of eight years with a fixed parole eligibility date – where the trial judge admitted evidence of a taped prison conversation with the defendant referring to getting rid of “boxing gear” – where the occupants were robbed of a bag containing boxing gear – where the trial judge ruled that the recording was admissible and relevant despite its capacity to be prejudicial – where the appellant contended that the trial judge erred in making such ruling – whether the trial judge erred in admitting the taped prison conversation into evidence – whether the prejudice suffered by the appellant as a result of the evidence being deemed admissible outweighed its probative effect

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR CANNOT BE SUPPORTED HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was identified by the two complainants in a photo board identification and by physical descriptions of the appellant given to police – where one of the appellant’s co-offenders was known to one of the complainants – where that complainant searched the known co-offender’s Facebook page for the appellant’s photo prior to the photo board session but stated that she could not see the Facebook photo properly – where the trial judge gave directions to treat the evidence of identification ‘with care’ and encouraged the jury to be ‘cautious’ when considering it – where the appellant contends that the physical descriptions proffered by the complainants differed from the appearance of the appellant shown in the photo board photograph of him or as otherwise described in evidence – where reference was also made to evidence concerning the quality of lighting in the house – whether these factors diminished to any significant extent the cogency of the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE – where the trial judge in summing up directed the jury to treat the evidence of identification ‘with care’ and encouraged the jury to be ‘cautious’ – where the appellant contends that there should have…

Continue reading R v Janissen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Janissen [2013] QCA 279
Case
[2013] QCA 279
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Janissen, the appellant was convicted in the lower court following a trial on four charges related to entering a dwelling at night while armed and in company, and assaulting and robbing the occupants. The appellant was sentenced to a head sentence of eight years with a fixed parole eligibility date. The primary issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge erred in admitting a taped prison conversation into evidence, wherein the appellant made reference to disposing of "boxing gear." The complainants had been robbed of a bag containing boxing gear. The appellant argued that the prejudicial nature of the evidence outweighed its probative value. Another issue was whether the trial judge should have given a warning to the jury regarding the dangers of convicting on identification evidence where its reliability was disputed.

The court considered the admission of the taped conversation, assessing whether it was relevant and admissible despite its prejudicial nature. The court found that the conversation was relevant as it corroborated other evidence, particularly concerning the disposal of the stolen boxing gear. The court also examined the identification evidence, noting the trial judge's directions to the jury to treat the evidence with care and caution. The court found that the judge's directions adequately addressed the reliability of the identification evidence, and no additional warning was necessary. The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the conversation or in the directions given to the jury regarding identification evidence.

The appeal was dismissed by the court. The decision affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.

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.