R v Urbano

[2011] QCA 96

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Urbano [2011] QCA 96

PARTIES:

R
v
URBANO. Leigh John
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 211 of 2010
DC No 330 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

13 May 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 March 2011

JUDGES:

White JA, Margaret Wilson AJA and Martin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

That the appeal against conviction be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – DISMISSAL OF APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – where appellant found guilty of robbery in company after two day trial – where appellant sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended after 18 months, with an operational period of five years – where appellant argued that the identification of the appellant by a police witness and by the complainant was inadmissible – where appellant argued that the trial judge misstated the evidence and failed to direct the jury on inadmissible evidence – where appellant argued the directions on identification evidence were inadequate – where trial judge told jury that identification of the person shown on footage was a matter for them to decide – whether  evidence inadmissible

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant argued that if the identification of the appellant was inadmissible it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty – whether there was other evidence from which the jury could be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt

Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555; [1992] HCA 13, cited
R v Evan, Robu and Bivolaru [2006] QCA 527, cited
R v LM[2004] QCA 192, cited

COUNSEL:

K Prskalo for the appellant
B O Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

[1]      WHITE JA:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Margaret Wilson AJA and agree with her Honour for the reasons that she gives that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed.

[2]      MARGARET WILSON AJA:   Leigh John Urbano ("the appellant") and Patricia Betty Moffatt were charged with robbery in company with personal violence.

[3]      Moffatt pleaded guilty to the charge.

[4]      A jury found the appellant guilty after a two day trial in the District Court.  He was sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended after 18 months, with an operational period of five years.  He has appealed against his conviction.

[5]      As the trial judge told the jury in her summing up, the real issue in the case was identification – whether the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was one of the people involved in attacking the complainant.

[6]      The…