Legal Research
Cases
R v Richardson

R v Richardson

Case [2002] TASSC 15 11 April 2002

Joinder of Counts

Admissibility of Evidence

Identification Evidence

Similar Fact Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2002] TASSC 15

CITATION: R v Richardson & Ors [2002] TASSC 15

PARTIES:  R
  v
  RICHARDSON, Conway Wayne

FITZPATRICK, Christopher Leigh
PICKETT, Adrian Alwyn
DENNISON, Michael Lyndon

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NOS:  411/2000; 128/2002; 129/2002; 32/2002
DELIVERED ON:  11 April 2002
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  9 April 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Information, indictment or presentment - Joinder of counts - By statute - Some facts or series of offences of some or similar character.

R v Armstrong (1990) 54 SASR 207, adopted.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [722]

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Information, indictment or presentment - Joinder - Joint or separate trial - Generally - Prejudice cured by appropriate direction.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [725]

Criminal Law - Evidence - Evidentiary matters relating to witnesses and accused persons - Identification evidence - Modes of proof - Identification from photographs - Generally - Discretion to exclude - Probative value outweighs prejudicial effect.

Alexander v R (1980 - 1981) 145 CLR 395; Festa v R [2001] HCA 72, followed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [607]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Accused Richardson:  K L Baumeler
           Accused Fitzpatrick:  M Daly
           Accused Pickett:  W Hodgman
           Accused Dennison:  C Mackie
           Crown:    L Mason, K Brown

Solicitors:
           Accused Richardson:  Butler McIntyre & Butler
           Accused Fitzpatrick:  Milton & Meyer
           Accused Pickett:  Milton & Meyer
           Accused Dennison:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
           Crown:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2002] TASSC 15
Number of paragraphs: 20

Serial No 15/2002
File No 411/2000
File No 128/2002
File No 129/2002
File No 32/2002

THE QUEEN v CONWAY WAYNE RICHARDSON, CHRISTOPHER LEIGH FITZPATRICK, ADRIAN ALWYN PICKETT and MICHAEL LYNDON DENNISON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COX CJ
10 April 2002

The accused Conway Wayne Richardson is charged with two counts of aggravated armed robbery on 12 and 13 May 2000 respectively. By his counsel he asks me to exercise a discretion to sever the indictment and order that the first count of armed robbery on 12 May 2000 be tried now and that the other be adjourned to a future date. It is not disputed that both counts have been properly joined in the indictment pursuant to the Criminal Code, s311(2), but it is submitted that pursuant to s326(3) this is an appropriate case for an order that separate trials on each count be had. It is submitted that the accused will be prejudiced by the inclusion of the second count and that the evidence in respect of the second count is inadmissible against him on the first count and vice versa.

The accused Michael Lyndon Dennison is charged with Richardson and two others, Christopher Leigh Fitzpatrick and Adrian Alwyn Pickett, on the first count of the indictment but is not charged in respect of the second count, that being a charge against the other three accused. He seeks an order that he be tried on the first count at a future…

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 Richardson

Details

AGLC: R v Richardson [2002] TASSC 15
Case: [2002] TASSC 15
Decision Date: 11 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of R v Richardson and others involves Conway Wayne Richardson, Christopher Leigh Fitzpatrick, Adrian Alwyn Pickett, and Michael Lyndon Dennison. Richardson is charged with two counts of aggravated armed robbery occurring on 12 and 13 May 2000, while Dennison is charged with only the first count. The other two accused are charged with both counts. The legal issues in the case revolve around the admissibility of similar fact evidence, the discretion to sever charges in an indictment, and the admissibility of identification evidence from photo boards. The court needed to determine whether the evidence of the two robberies could be jointly tried and whether the identification evidence from photo boards would be prejudicial to the accused.

The court concluded that the evidence of the two robberies was admissible against Richardson as it had a strong degree of probative force and a really material bearing on the issues to be decided. The similarities between the two crimes, such as the use of hotel rooms as bases, the type of cars stolen, and the modus operandi, pointed strongly to the inference that Richardson was involved in both crimes. The court rejected the application for severance, stating that the evidence on each charge was admissible against Richardson. Regarding Dennison, the court ruled that evidence of activities of the other accused after the first robbery would not be admissible against him on his trial for the first count, but an appropriate direction would cure any apprehended prejudice. The court also decided to admit the evidence of identification from photo boards, noting that the probative value of such evidence far outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the accused. The court found that the evidence of the witnesses who identified Richardson from photo boards was cogent and relevant, and the same considerations applied regarding any prejudice.

The final orders of the court were that both counts against Richardson would be tried jointly, Dennison's trial for the first count would proceed separately, and the evidence of identification from photo boards would be admitted with appropriate directions to the jury to mitigate any potential prejudice.

Orders