CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence – spontaneous identification of photo on internet - subsequent photographic identification – dock identification – dog identification – evidence admitted.

Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395 at 399, 402, 406 & 427; Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593 at [51]; R v Saxon (1997) 92 A Crim R 188, Jamal v The Queen (2000) 182 ALR 307 at [45]; R v Hallam & Karger (1985) 42 SASR 126 at 130; R v Bouquet [1962] SR (NSW) 563 at 567; R v Clune [1982] VR 1; R v Britten (1988) 51 SASR 567 at 571; Grbic v Pitkethly (1992) 110 ALR 576; R v Demeter [1995] 2 Qd R 626 at 629, applied.
R v Williams [1983] 2 VR 579; R v Gorham (1997) 68 SASR 505 at 508; R v Clark & Others (1996) 91 A Crim R 46, considered.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: R Wild QC, A Elliott, A Barnett & J Down
Defendant: I Barker QC, G Algie, M Twiggs & I Read

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant: Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission

Judgment category classification: A
Judgment ID Number: Mar0520
Number of pages: 45

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

The Queen v Murdoch [2005] NTSC 75
No. 20215807

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN
Plaintiff

AND:

BRADLEY JOHN MURDOCH
Defendant

CORAM: MARTIN (BR) CJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 15 December 2005)

Introduction

[1] The accused is charged that on 14 July 2001, near Barrow Creek, he murdered Peter Marco Falconio. He is also charged that on the same occasion he deprived Joanne Rachael Lees of her personal liberty and that he unlawfully assaulted Ms Lees in circumstances of aggravation.

[2] Early in the evening of Thursday 14 July 2001, Ms Lees and Mr Falconio were travelling north in a Kombi van on the Stuart Highway approximately 10 kilometres north of Barrow Creek. Mr Falconio was driving. A vehicle pulled alongside and the driver gestured to Mr Falconio to pull over. It is the Crown case that the driver of the other vehicle was the accused.

[3] After Mr Falconio stopped the vehicle on the side of the highway, he walked to the rear of the Kombi van where he met the driver of the other vehicle. Ms Lees could hear the men talking about sparks coming from the exhaust. Mr Falconio returned to the driver’s side door and asked Ms Lees to rev the engine. That was the last time that Ms Lees…

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 Murdoch (No 1)

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Murdoch (No 1) [2005] NTSC 075
Case: [2005] NTSC 75
Decision Date: 15 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Bradley John Murdoch, who was charged with the murder of Peter Falconio and the deprivation of personal liberty and assault of Joanne Lees. The accused objected to the admission of evidence related to identifications of him by Joanne Lees, including internet and photo-board identifications, a dock identification, and a dog identification. The court ruled that the internet identification was admissible as it was a spontaneous recognition and not influenced by prior knowledge of the accused's status as a suspect. The photo-board identification was also deemed admissible, as the evidence possessed probative value and the potential for unfair prejudice did not outweigh its probative value. The dock identification was considered admissible as a formality, and the dog identification was deemed admissible as it was a piece of circumstantial evidence that could be weighed by the jury.

Orders