R v Stanley - [2004] NSWCCA 278

CITATION: R v Stanley [2004] NSWCCA 278 revised - 19/08/2004

HEARING DATE(S): 04/08/2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 August 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 1; Adams J at 2; Howie J at 3

DECISION: The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Summing up - dock identification - whether directions adequate to warn jury of dangers of identification in circumstances of the case.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 - s 116

CASES CITED: Alexander v The Queen - (1981) 145 CLR 395
Dhanhoa v The Queen [2003] 77 ALJR 1433

PARTIES :
Regina v Kurt Frederick Stanley

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60166/04

COUNSEL: G. Rowling - Crown
S. Odgers SC - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
S. O'Connor - Appellant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/61/0127

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Woods DCJ

60166/04

DUNFORD J
ADAMS J
HOWIE J
WEDNESDAY 18 AUGUST 2004

R v Kurt Frederick STANLEY

Judgment

1 DUNFORD J: I agree with Howie J.

2 ADAMS J: I agree with Howie J.

3 HOWIE J: Kurt Stanley, the appellant, was convicted by a jury of a robbery in company. He appeals against his conviction on a single ground of appeal contending that the trial judge erred in the directions given to the jury on identification, the only issue raised for the jury’s determination during the course of the trial.

4 On 8 September 2001, shortly after 8pm, Maurice Blackhall was assaulted by two men in the car park of the Wellington Bowling Club. He was struck to the face and, when he fell to the ground, kicked to the body. During this assault his wallet was stolen. He could not recognise either of his assailants, although he could give a description of the two men when later interviewed by police.

5 At about 8.10 pm on the same evening Christopher Fuller was jogging past the Bowling Club, when he heard someone call out “ Hey Fuller”. He stopped and moved closer to where he heard the voice. He saw two men sitting on a bench near a disused bowling green. He recognised the two men as Kurt Stanley and Patrick Daley. One of them said to him, “Where’s your brother?” Mr Fuller replied that he did not know and one of the persons said, “Yeh, its right then, go away”. Mr Fuller continued to jog to his home a short distance away.

6 Shortly after he arrived home, Mr Fuller heard someone call out for help. He jumped the back fence and went to the Bowling Club where he saw the injured Mr Blackhall. Mr Fuller later told the police the names of the two persons he believed he had seen on the bench near the bowling green.

7 Mr Fuller had never met the appellant or the person he understood to be Kurt Stanley. He accepted that it had been inaccurate of him to tell police that he knew Kurt Stanley but rather the position was that he knew of a person…

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 Stanley

Details

AGLC: R v Stanley [2004] NSWCCA 278
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 278
Decision Date: 18 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina v Stanley, the appellant was convicted of the offence of armed robbery. The dispute arose from the identification of the appellant in a dock during the trial, and the adequacy of the directions given to the jury regarding the dangers of relying on such identification. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's directions were sufficient to warn the jury of the potential pitfalls and dangers in relying on dock identification evidence. This included the consideration of factors such as the conditions under which the identification was made, the opportunity for the witness to observe the appellant, and the circumstances of the crime itself.

The court considered that the directions provided to the jury were inadequate in addressing the specific circumstances of this case. The trial judge failed to provide sufficient guidance on the factors that the jury should consider when evaluating the reliability of dock identification evidence. This included the length of time between the crime and the identification, the conditions in which the identification was made, and the opportunity the witness had to observe the appellant. As a result, the court held that the trial judge's directions did not adequately warn the jury of the dangers inherent in relying on dock identification evidence. Consequently, the appellant's conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The final orders of the court included the quashing of the appellant's conviction and the ordering of a new trial. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that trial judges provide adequate directions to juries regarding the evaluation of dock identification evidence, in order to safeguard the fairness of the criminal justice system.

Orders