R v Jeffers - [1994] QCA 11

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1994] QCA 011
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 187 of 1992

Brisbane
[R v. Jeffers]

BETWEEN

T H E Q U E E N

DARREN CHRISTOPHER JEFFERS

(Appellant)

Macrossan C.J.

Pincus J.A. Thomas J.

Judgment delivered: 18/2/94

Judgment of the Court

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - identification evidence - inconsistencies - warnings to jury - whether verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory

Counsel:Mr P. Nase for the appellant

Mr M.J. Byrne for the respondent

Solicitors:Legal Aid Office (Queensland) for the appellant
Director of Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing Date:14 May 1993
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 187 of 1992

Brisbane

Before The Chief Justice

Mr Justice Pincus
Mr Justice Thomas

[R v. Jeffers]

T H E Q U E E N

DARREN CHRISTOPHER JEFFERS

(Appellant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 18/2/94

This appeal is concerned with the adequacy of identification evidence and the trial judge's direction to the jury in respect of it. The appeal notice also seeks leave to appeal against sentence but no argument was addressed to the Court on this aspect. A formal order disposing of the application for leave will be necessary. First, the appeal against conviction must be considered.

The appellant had been charged jointly with another man, Ryan, on counts of robbery alleged to have occurred at a branch of the Metway Bank at Noosa on 18 January, 1991 and also on two counts of unlawful use of motor vehicles on the same day. When called on together to plead, Ryan pleaded guilty and it was common ground throughout the appellant's trial that Ryan had been involved in the offences. The question was whether it was established that the appellant was one of his co- offenders.

The Crown case was that the appellant was the driver of two get-away cars used in succession after the robbery had been carried out. It seems that a third car was also used at some later point and evidence was tendered to this Court describing the appearance of a person, not the appellant, who had been dealt with in certain other proceedings on the basis that he was the driver of that car. This evidence seemed to indicate that this further person shared a physical feature with the appellant, namely a gap in his teeth. An affidavit of a deponent, a Ms Bentley, received by leave could be regarded as indicating this. For the disposal of the appeal this evidence did not turn out to have particular significance.

Three witnesses gave important evidence on the identification issue which was at the centre of the trial. Other witnesses gave evidence of association at relevant times between the appellant and Ryan and this also will receive some consideration.

The identification evidence can be dealt with first. The three witnesses to which reference has been made were Mrs Kling, Mrs Earner and Mr Jeffries.

Mrs Kling was…

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 Jeffers

Details

AGLC: R v Jeffers [1994] QCA 11
Case: [1994] QCA 11
Decision Date: 18/02/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jeffers, the Supreme Court of Queensland dealt with an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant, Darren Christopher Jeffers, was convicted jointly with another man, Ryan, for offences including robbery and unlawful use of motor vehicles. The central issue was whether the appellant was correctly identified as one of the perpetrators. The identification evidence was central to the case, with three witnesses providing differing descriptions of the appellant, including a gap in his teeth. The court considered whether the trial judge's directions to the jury adequately addressed the inconsistencies in the identification evidence.

The legal issues centred on the adequacy of the identification evidence and the trial judge's instructions to the jury regarding this evidence. The appellant argued that the inconsistencies in the identification evidence were so significant that they rendered the verdict unsafe. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge appropriately highlighted these inconsistencies and whether the overall evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had sufficiently drawn the jury's attention to the weaknesses and inconsistencies in the identification evidence. The court noted that while there were discrepancies, such as one witness stating the appellant had a beard while another said he was clean-shaven, these did not necessarily undermine the overall reliability of the identifications. The court further found that the circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's association with Ryan, provided additional support for the identification evidence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders