R v Rowbotham - [1992] QCA 215

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 215

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No.98 of 1992

T H E Q U E E N
v.

WILLIAM DAVID ROWBOTHAM

Appellant

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Delivered the 20th day of July, 1992

On 2 March 1992, the appellant was convicted in the

District Court at Brisbane of house breaking. He has appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge erred in his discretion in admitting certain evidence and that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

On 8 May 1991, the complainant observed a man on the

opposite side of the street from where she lived cross the
street and walk towards her front door. Shortly afterwards,
she went downstairs and saw the flyscreen being removed from
a window. She went to the back door of her residence and
called out for him to stop. He ran past her laundry and she

gave chase, but lost sight of him in an adjoining street.

The police were called and attended at the complainant's

residence. While travelling there, a police constable saw the
appellant at a house in another near by street, which was in
the opposite direction from the direction in which the
offender was running when pursued by the complainant. The
appellant had an explanation for his presence at the house

where he was seen, which was the residence of his girlfriend.

When the police vehicle stopped, the appellant ran, but

was chased and apprehended. Another man who was present in
the yard of the house also ran. In a subsequent interview,
the appellant denied that he knew the other man and said that
he had run because he believed that there was a warrant
outstanding for him. Although there was no outstanding
warrant, a substantial amount of restitution had been owing by
the appellant since 1987, and a warrant could well have been
in existence.

The only other evidence against the accused was his

appearance and the clothes which he was wearing when
apprehended, which corresponded to the description given by
the complainant of the offender and the clothes which he was

wearing.

In all, the complainant had the offender under

observation before, during and after the offence for perhaps 4
to 5 minutes. After the police arrived at her residence, she
described the offender as "180 centimetres, medium-build,
brown, wavy hair, tanned complexion, greeny-blue T-shirt and
blue jeans."

The appellant, although heavier in appearance at the time

of trial, otherwise met the description and was wearing a T-
shirt and jeans when he was apprehended. At that time, two
photographs were taken of him, showing those clothes.

However, little more than a week later, when the

complainant was shown a collection of photographs including a
photograph of the appellant, she was unable to identify him as
the offender. On the same occasion, she was shown the T-shirt
which he had been wearing when he was apprehended and which
she said was "the same colour" and "identical" to the…

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 Rowbotham

Details

AGLC: R v Rowbotham [1992] QCA 215
Case: [1992] QCA 215
Decision Date: 20/07/1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in the case of The Queen v. William David Rowbotham involved the appellant's conviction for house breaking, which he contested on the grounds that the trial judge made errors in admitting certain evidence and that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, William David Rowbotham, was found guilty of house breaking by the District Court at Brisbane on 2 March 1992. The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility and fairness of the evidence used to identify the appellant, specifically the complainant's identification of his clothing and T-shirt, and whether these identifications were sufficient to support the conviction without being unfair.

The Court of Appeal examined the evidence presented at trial, particularly focusing on the complainant's identification of the appellant's clothing and T-shirt. The complainant had observed the appellant for approximately 4 to 5 minutes but could not identify him from a lineup and later failed to identify him from a photograph of his clothing without the head. The court found that the manner in which the complainant identified the appellant's clothing was unfair and could have deprived the appellant of a fair trial. Additionally, the court noted that the trial judge failed to address the deficiencies in the identification process during the summing-up. Despite the appellant's flight from the police, which could be interpreted as an admission of guilt, the court determined that the evidence was not sufficient to uphold the conviction due to the unfair identification process.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial. The court's decision emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the necessity for proper identification procedures. The court also highlighted that while there might be grounds to retry the appellant, it was appropriate for the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine whether to proceed with a retrial. This decision underscores the critical role of ensuring that evidence presented in court is both admissible and fair, particularly in cases where identification plays a pivotal role in the conviction.

Orders