R v Rockwell - [2014] QCA 321

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Rockwell [2014] QCA 321

PARTIES:

R
v
ROCKWELL, Mark Lawrence
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 157 of 2014
DC No 199 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

5 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 November 2014

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Dalton J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    Grant leave to the appellant to adduce evidence by way of the affidavit of Mark Lawrence Rockwell sworn 24 October 2014, the affidavit of Tristan Scott Carlos sworn 27 October 2014, the affidavit of Megan Power sworn 27 October 2014 and the affidavit of Trevor Baldock sworn 14 October 2014.

2.    Allow the appeal.

3.    Set aside the convictions on Counts 1 and 2.

4.    The appellant be retried on Counts 1 and 2.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the complainant was robbed by two offenders in April 2013 – where in July 2013 the complainant was again robbed but by a single offender whom she recognised from the April incident – where the complainant reported both incidents to the police in August 2013 – where the complainant identified the appellant from a photoboard – where the appellant was charged and convicted after a trial of two counts of robbery – where the complainant was the primary witness at the trial – where her evidence was at times inconsistent – whether the complainant’s evidence was so inconsistent that a jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where in the photoboard the appellant’s eyes appeared to be brown in colour – where the complainant testified that the person who robbed her had brown coloured eyes – where the appellant has blue coloured eyes – whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred

MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, considered
R v Katsidis; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2005] QCA 229, considered
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46, cited

COUNSEL:

L K Crowley for the appellant
G P Cash for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

GOTTERSON JA: On 20 May 2014 at the District Court in Townsville, the appellant, Mark Lawrence Rockwell, was convicted on two counts of robbery. Count 1 alleged that on a date between 25 February 2013 and 4 July 2013 at Townsville, the appellant robbed the complainant, Ellen Yun Lan Wong, whilst armed with a knife, in company with another, and that immediately after the robbery he used personal violence to the complainant. Count…

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 Rockwell

Details

AGLC: R v Rockwell [2014] QCA 321
Case: [2014] QCA 321
Decision Date: 5 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mark Lawrence Rockwell, was convicted of two counts of robbery, following a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The complainant had been robbed twice by different offenders, once in April 2013 and again in July 2013. She identified the appellant as one of the robbers from a photoboard and reported both incidents to the police in August 2013. The primary witness at the trial was the complainant, whose evidence was at times inconsistent. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the complainant’s evidence was so inconsistent that a jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt. Additionally, the appellant argued that a miscarriage of justice had occurred as the photoboard had depicted the appellant’s eyes as brown, while in fact he has blue eyes. The complainant had testified that the person who robbed her had brown-coloured eyes.

The court was required to decide whether the complainant’s evidence was so inconsistent that a jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt. The court also needed to determine whether the appellant's blue eyes being incorrectly depicted as brown in the photoboard amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court examined the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, finding that while there were some inconsistencies, these did not render her evidence so unreliable that a jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt. The court found that the misidentification of the appellant’s eye colour in the photoboard was a significant irregularity that could lead to a miscarriage of justice.

The court held that the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, while notable, did not undermine the overall reliability of her testimony to the extent that a reasonable jury could not have found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. However, the misidentification of the appellant's eye colour in the photoboard was a significant irregularity that warranted a new trial. The court concluded that the irregularity had the potential to mislead the jury and therefore amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellant was granted a retrial on Counts 1 and 2. The court also granted leave to the appellant to adduce additional evidence by way of affidavits.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to the appellant to adduce evidence by way of the affidavit of Mark Lawrence Rockwell sworn 24 October 2014, the affidavit of Tristan Scott Carlos sworn 27 October 2014, the affidavit of Megan Power sworn 27 October 2014 and the affidavit of Trevor Baldock sworn 14 October 2014.

2. Allow the appeal.

3. Set aside the convictions on Counts 1 and 2.

4. The appellant be retried on Counts 1 and 2.

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 Rockwell [2014] QCA 321
PARTIES:	R v ROCKWELL, Mark Lawrence (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 157 of 2014 DC No 199 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	5 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 November 2014
JUDGES:	Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Dalton J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Grant leave to the appellant to adduce evidence by way of the affidavit of Mark Lawrence Rockwell sworn 24 October 2014, the affidavit of Tristan Scott Carlos sworn 27 October 2014, the affidavit of Megan Power sworn 27 October 2014 and the affidavit of Trevor Baldock sworn 14 October 2014. 2. Allow the appeal. 3. Set aside the convictions on Counts 1 and 2. 4. The appellant be retried on Counts 1 and 2.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the complainant was robbed by two offenders in April 2013 – where in July 2013 the complainant was again robbed but by a single offender whom she recognised from the April incident – where the complainant reported both incidents to the police in August 2013 – where the complainant identified the appellant from a photoboard – where the appellant was charged and convicted after a trial of two counts of robbery – where the complainant was the primary witness at the trial – where her evidence was at times inconsistent – whether the complainant’s evidence was so inconsistent that a jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where in the photoboard the appellant’s eyes appeared to be brown in colour – where the complainant testified that the person who robbed her had brown coloured eyes – where the appellant has blue coloured eyes – whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, considered R v Katsidis; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2005] QCA 229, considered TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46, cited
COUNSEL:	L K Crowley for the appellant G P Cash for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent