Legal Research
Cases
R v Murdoch (No 4)

R v Murdoch (No 4)

Case [2005] NTSC 78 15 December 2005

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Identification Evidence

Breach of Trust

Unjust Enrichment

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2005 List]

The Queen v Murdoch [2005] NTSC 78

PARTIES: THE QUEEN

MURDOCH, Bradley John (No 4)

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: 20215807

DELIVERED: 15 December 2005

HEARING DATES: 7-8 March, 21-22 & 26 April 2005, 18 October – 13 December 2005

JUDGMENT OF: MARTIN (BR) CJ

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW

Murder – admissibility of expert evidence – video footage – identification evidence – facial and body mapping/photo-comparison – evidence admitted.

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: Mar0523
Number of pages: 43

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

The Queen v Murdoch [2005] NTSC 78
No. 20215807

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN
Plaintiff

AND:

MURDOCH, Bradley John
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] The Crown sought to lead evidence of film from a security camera (“the security film”) installed in a truck stop in Alice Springs for the purpose of establishing that the accused was in Alice Springs early on 15 July 2001 and, therefore, had the opportunity to commit the crimes. In addition the Crown sought to lead two categories of opinion evidence. First, evidence was advanced from four persons who knew the accused in July 2001 that either they recognised the person depicted in the security film as the accused or the person depicted looked like the accused. Secondly, it was proposed to call a forensic anatomist, Dr Meiya Sutisno, to give expert evidence that the similarities between the person depicted in the security film and the accused were such that in her view the person in the film was the accused. The accused objected to the admission of evidence of the security film and any opinion evidence based on it. I admitted all the evidence to which objection was taken with the exception of one of the four witnesses who knew the accused. I now set out my reasons for those rulings.

Facts

[3] Early in the evening of Thursday 14 July 2001 Ms Lees and Mr Falconio were travelling north in a Kombie 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.

[4] After Mr Falconio stopped the vehicle…

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 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Murdoch (No 4) [2005] NTSC 078
Case: [2005] NTSC 78
Decision Date: 15 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bradley John Murdoch was charged with the murder of Peter Marco Falconio and the deprivation of personal liberty of Joanne Rachael Lees, and the assault of Ms Lees. The court had to decide on the admissibility of the evidence from the security camera footage from a truck stop in Alice Springs, as well as the admissibility of expert opinion evidence regarding facial and body mapping. The court ruled that the security camera footage was admissible, despite the inferior quality of the images, as the footage was of probative value and the failure to retain the original digital footage was not due to any unlawful or improper conduct. The court also admitted the expert opinion evidence of Dr Meiya Sutisno, a forensic anatomist, who used facial and body mapping to conclude that the person in the security footage was the accused. The court found that this type of evidence was admissible as it provided a reliable body of knowledge and expertise that the jury would not possess. The court declined to exercise its discretion to exclude the evidence, finding that with appropriate directions, the jury would be able to critically evaluate the evidence.

Orders