R v Thomson

In the case of R v Thomson, the appellant, Thomson, was convicted of committing grievous bodily harm upon the complainant. The incident occurred in the toilets of a bar in Mackay on the night of 24 July 2014. The complainant was assaulted in the bar's men's toilet, but he could not describe his assailant or recall details of the assault. Thomson was subsequently identified by a witness, Conway, as the assailant. Conway initially saw a male wearing a blue dress shirt leaving the toilets as he entered, but later identified Thomson, who was wearing a black T-shirt, as the assailant. The appeal centred on whether the evidence identifying Thomson as the offender was sufficient to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that Thomson was the assailant. The court had to consider whether it could be reasonably inferred that Thomson had been previously wearing a blue dress shirt but had subsequently disposed of it. The court had to assess whether the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt that Thomson was the assailant. The court also had to consider the role of the jury in determining issues of fact and the standard of proof required to uphold a conviction.

The court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that Thomson was the assailant. The court concluded that the evidence of flight, whilst indicative of a consciousness of guilt, was insufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Thomson was the complainant's assailant if there was a reasonable doubt as to the reliability of Conway's identification of the male across the street as the complainant's assailant. The court found that the evidence will always give rise to such a doubt, and there is no basis to conclude that Thomson ought to be the subject of a re-trial. The verdict must be set aside, and a verdict of acquittal ought to be entered.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the conviction be set aside, and a verdict of acquittal be entered. The orders were delivered ex tempore on 14 October 2016.