R v Murphy - [1995] QCA 568

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 416 of 1995

Brisbane
[R. v. Murphy]

T H E Q U E E N

PATRICK ALAN MURPHY

Appellant
McPherson JA
Pincus JA
Thomas J

Judgment delivered 19 December 1995
Separate concurring reasons by each member of the Court
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - identification - whether photoboard identification acceptable - Alexander v. R. (1980-1981) 145 CLR 395, R v. Pitkin (1995) 130 ALR 35 discussed - whether breach of Commissioner's directions - whether breach of s.4.9 Police Service Administration Act 1990- effect of other supporting evidence.
Counsel: Mr K. Copely with Ms D. Richards for the Appellant
Ms L. Clare for the Respondent
Solicitors: Legal Aid Office for the Appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent
Hearing Date: 4 December 1995
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 416 of 1995

Brisbane
BeforeMcPherson J.A.
Pincus J.A. Thomas J.

[R. v. Murphy]

T H E Q U E E N

PATRICK ALAN MURPHY Appellant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.
Judgment delivered the 19th day of December 1995

I have read and agree with the reasons of Thomas J. and Pincus J.A. The

appeal should be dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 416 of 1995.

Brisbane
BeforeMcPherson J.A.
Pincus J.A. Thomas J.

[R v. Murphy]

T H E Q U E E N

PATRICK ALAN MURPHY

Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.

Judgment delivered 19/12/1995
I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Thomas J. The authorities

since Alexander (1981) 145 C.L.R. 395 do not generally support the view that
identification tests arranged by the police and not consisting in a line-up should
necessarily be excluded from evidence. One example of the approach taken is Pearsall
(1990) 49 A.Crim.R. 439 where it was said in the New South Wales Court of Criminal
Appeal (per Hunt J at 444):
"The absence of an identification parade may in some cases mean that the weight to be afforded to the evidence of identification is so little that the trial judge is obliged to reject it, upon the basis that its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect . . ."

Another is the Victorian decision in Vincec (1990) 50 A.Crim.R. 203, where evidence
of identification from a collection of photographs was admitted and the court said that it did not understand it to be the law that "a conviction must inevitably be set aside when
the only evidence of identification is that of a stranger by photograph" (206). Then in
Garlin, 56 A.Crim.R. 195, a Queensland case, evidence of identification by a witness
who viewed two men only (one the accused) in separate rooms was admitted. Ryan
J said in effect that if that had been the only evidence of identification "the liability to
mistake would have been so great that a conviction based on such…

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 Murphy

Details

AGLC: R v Murphy [1995] QCA 568
Case: [1995] QCA 568
Decision Date: 19/12/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Murphy, the appellant, Mr. Murphy, was convicted of armed robbery and sought to appeal the decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred in admitting certain identification evidence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue in this case was the admissibility of photoboard identification evidence provided by the complainants in the context of an armed robbery. The appellant argued that the identification process was unfair and violated his right to a fair trial.

The court examined the principles set out in Alexander v. R. and R v. Pitkin, considering whether the photoboard identification process was reliable and whether it complied with the requirements of fairness and justice. The court also assessed whether the police had breached any Commissioner's directions or provisions under the Police Service Administration Act 1990. Furthermore, the court considered the effect of other supporting evidence that was available to corroborate the identification.

The court found that the identification process, while not perfect, did not violate the appellant's right to a fair trial. The court held that the identification evidence was reliable and that other supporting evidence was sufficient to corroborate the complainants' accounts. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The High Court concluded that the trial judge did not err in admitting the photoboard identification evidence, and the breach of Commissioner's directions or the Police Service Administration Act 1990 did not impact the reliability of the identification process.

Orders