R v Namie - [2011] QCA 304

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Namie [2011] QCA 304

PARTIES:

R
v
NAMIE, Lanceton Douglas
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 17 of 2011
DC No 70 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mt Isa

DELIVERED ON:

28 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 July 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Muir JA and Dalton J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – MODES OF IDENTIFICATION – PHOTOGRAPHS – GENERALLY – where the appellant was convicted after trial for burglary by breaking and attempted rape – where both complainants identified the appellant from a photoboard as looking like the offender – where the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in not applying Pitkin v The Queen (1995) 69 ALJR 612 – whether the evidence was led as positive evidence of identification – whether the trial judge gave sufficient directions about the dangers of identification evidence generally and the specific weaknesses of the identification evidence in this case – whether the trial judge erred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant further contended that the prosecution evidence established nothing more than a possibility that the appellant was the offender – where the complainants spent time with the appellant prior to the offences and gave evidence that the appellant had introduced himself as "Lanton" and "Lance" – where the appellant argued there were irreconcilable differences in the complainants' accounts and that the female complainant's evidence could have been tainted by her discussions with people outside the room where the offences occurred – whether the verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in directing the jury about the female complainant's experience with Aboriginal people – where the appellant argued that the direction impermissibly suggested that the female complainant's limited experience with Aboriginal people enhanced the prospect of her correctly identifying the appellant as the offender – where the trial judge directed the jury as to the name of the person seen by the complainants on a previous occasion – where the appellant argued that this evidence was only relevant if the complainants' identification of the offender as the appellant was correct – whether the impugned directions amounted to an error of law or a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1)

Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
Pitkin v The Queen (1995) 69 ALJR 612; [1995] HCA 30

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 Namie

Details

AGLC: R v Namie [2011] QCA 304
Case: [2011] QCA 304
Decision Date: 28 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, R, appealed against his conviction for burglary by breaking and attempted rape, arguing that the trial judge made errors in handling the evidence of identification, the weight of the evidence, and the directions given to the jury. The appeal was dismissed by the court.

The primary legal issues concerned whether the trial judge erred in admitting and handling the identification evidence from the complainants, who identified R from a photoboard. The appellant argued that the judge failed to apply the principles from Pitkin v The Queen and did not sufficiently caution the jury about the dangers and specific weaknesses of identification evidence. The court examined whether these errors affected the reliability of the identification evidence and whether they led to a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in handling the identification evidence. The judge provided adequate directions to the jury about the dangers of such evidence and the need for caution. The court also concluded that the identification evidence, despite its weaknesses, was reliable enough to support the jury's verdict. Regarding the weight of the prosecution's evidence, the court held that the jury was entitled to find that the evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court further found that the trial judge's directions to the jury, including those about the female complainant's experience with Aboriginal people, did not constitute a miscarriage of justice or an error of law.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction stood. The court found no errors in the trial judge's handling of the evidence or directions to the jury that warranted a new trial or an acquittal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction 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.

CITATION:	R v Namie [2011] QCA 304
PARTIES:	R v NAMIE, Lanceton Douglas (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 17 of 2011 DC No 70 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mt Isa
DELIVERED ON:	28 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 July 2011
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Muir JA and Dalton J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – MODES OF IDENTIFICATION – PHOTOGRAPHS – GENERALLY – where the appellant was convicted after trial for burglary by breaking and attempted rape – where both complainants identified the appellant from a photoboard as looking like the offender – where the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in not applying Pitkin v The Queen (1995) 69 ALJR 612 – whether the evidence was led as positive evidence of identification – whether the trial judge gave sufficient directions about the dangers of identification evidence generally and the specific weaknesses of the identification evidence in this case – whether the trial judge erred CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant further contended that the prosecution evidence established nothing more than a possibility that the appellant was the offender – where the complainants spent time with the appellant prior to the offences and gave evidence that the appellant had introduced himself as "Lanton" and "Lance" – where the appellant argued there were irreconcilable differences in the complainants' accounts and that the female complainant's evidence could have been tainted by her discussions with people outside the room where the offences occurred – whether the verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in directing the jury about the female complainant's experience with Aboriginal people – where the appellant argued that the direction impermissibly suggested that the female complainant's limited experience with Aboriginal people enhanced the prospect of her correctly identifying the appellant as the offender – where the trial judge directed the jury as to the name of the person seen by the complainants on a previous occasion – where the appellant argued that this evidence was only relevant if the complainants' identification of the offender as the appellant was correct – whether the impugned directions amounted to an error of law or a miscarriage of justice Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1) Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited Pitkin v The Queen (1995) 69 ALJR 612; [1995] HCA 30