R v Stamp - [2012] NTSC 18

R v Stamp [2012] NTSC 18
PARTIES: The Queen
v

STAMP, Phillip Mark

TITLE OF COURT:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:   SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:   20729580
DELIVERED:   15 MARCH 2012
HEARING DATES:   11, 12, 13 & 14 MAY 2010
JUDGMENT OF:   KELLY J

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Plaintiff:   T Berkley
Defendant:   B Cassells
Solicitors:
Plaintiff:   Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant:   Woodcock Solicitors
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:   KEL12008
Number of pages:   5

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
R v Stamp [2012] NTSC 18
No. 20729580
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

Plaintiff

AND:

PHILLIP MARK STAMP

Defendant

CORAM: KELLY J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 15 March 2012)

Mr Stamp is charged (among other things) with stealing a Westpac card belonging to the victim and using it to steal $1,000.00 by withdrawing it from the victim’s bank account through an ATM at Hibiscus Shopping Centre.
The Crown has obtained CCTV footage of a tall Caucasian male of similar build to the accused using the ATM at Hibiscus Shopping Centre in what is known by other means to be the relevant transaction. It is not possible to see the face of the man in the CCTV footage because of a cap obscuring his face and the general quality of the footage.
The Crown intends to tender the CCTV footage in evidence at the trial. The Defence does not object.
In addition, the Crown proposes to call evidence from two people who know Mr Stamp, both of whom say they recognise the person in the CCTV footage as Mr Stamp from his general shape and build, and the way the man stands, walks, squats and generally holds himself.
The first witness, Mr Westcott, is an accomplice to some of the crimes with which Mr Stamp has been charged. He has pleaded guilty to extorting money from the victim two days after the theft from the ATM and has implicated Mr Stamp as the principal offender in that extortion. (Essentially he says he was paid $50.00 by Mr Stamp to collect money from the victim on one occasion and was to be paid another $50.00 for collecting a second sum of money at the time he was arrested.)
Mr Westcott gave evidence that as at October 2007, the date when the offences took place, he had known Mr Stamp for about a year. He saw him approximately once a week for the purpose of scoring drugs for him and for most of the time on most of these occasions Mr Stamp shared the drugs with Mr Westcott while they were seated in Mr Stamp’s car. He did however have other opportunities to observe Mr Stamp walking, on his weekly drug excursions and other occasions such as walking into a friend’s house. He described their relationship as “friends”.
Mr Westcott’s evidence is that he was initially shown some CCTV footage by Constable Hodge that did not contain the piece of…

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 Stamp

Details

AGLC: R v Stamp [2012] NTSC 18
Case: [2012] NTSC 18
Decision Date: 15/03/2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stamp involved the defendant, Phillip Mark Stamp, charged with stealing a Westpac card and withdrawing $1,000 from the victim’s bank account via an ATM at Hibiscus Shopping Centre. The Crown intended to present CCTV footage of the transaction, which, while not showing the perpetrator's face clearly, depicted a tall Caucasian male. Two witnesses, Mr Westcott and Mr Derkson, were expected to testify that they recognised the individual in the footage as Stamp based on his physical characteristics and mannerisms.

The central legal issue was the admissibility of identification evidence from witnesses who claimed to recognise Stamp from the CCTV footage despite the poor visibility of his face. The court needed to determine whether such evidence was relevant and admissible, given that it was not apparent to the jury and relied on physical attributes not visible in the footage.

The court found that the identification evidence was relevant and admissible. Relying on precedents such as Smith v R and R v Murdoch, the court reasoned that witnesses who knew Stamp well could provide insights into his physical characteristics and mannerisms that the jury could not discern. The court held that the witnesses' evidence about Stamp’s general build, walking style, and posture provided a unique perspective that the jury lacked. Additionally, the court rejected the defence’s argument that the prejudicial value of the evidence outweighed its probative value, stating that the evidence's potential importance in the case justified its admissibility, with appropriate warnings to the jury about the risks of identification evidence.

In conclusion, the court ordered that the identification evidence from Mr Westcott and Mr Derkson be admitted. This decision allowed the Crown to present critical identification evidence that could aid in establishing Stamp's involvement in the theft, while also ensuring that the jury was cautioned about the inherent risks in such evidence.

Orders