R v Weston - [1997] QCA 260

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 260
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 67 of 1997

Brisbane

[R. v. Weston]

THE QUEEN

STEPHEN JAMES WESTON

Appellant

Macrossan C.J.
Davies J.A.
Thomas J.

Judgment delivered 26 August 1997

Judgment of the Court

APPEAL DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL - appeal against conviction of armed robbery in company - circumstantial evidence identified the appellant and his brother as the robbers - witness was asked whether he had heard the appellant's voice since the robbery - whether trial judge erred in admitting evidence of voice identification and whether this evidence was so unsatisfactory as to render the verdict of the jury unreasonable and unable to be supported - whether the trial judge misdirected the jury as to alleged lies told by the appellant to a police officer.
Counsel:	Mrs. S. Hamlyn-Harris for the appellant Mrs. L. Clare for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date:	16 May 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 26 August 1997

On 20 February 1997 the appellant was convicted after a trial in the District Court at Maroochydore of armed robbery in company of a Caltex service station at Bli Bli on the evening of 8 January 1996. He appeals against that conviction on three grounds the third of which was added by leave on the hearing of this appeal. They are:

1.          the learned trial Judge erred in admitting evidence of voice identification.
2.          The evidence of eye witness and voice identification of the appellant was so unsatisfactory as to render the verdict of the jury unreasonable and unable to be supported, having regard to all the evidence.
3.          The learned trial Judge misdirected the jury as to alleged lies told by the appellant to a police officer.

At about 9.00 p.m. on the night in question two men robbed the service station. One had a gun; the other was unarmed. Both wore masks, described as cowboy masks, which were apparently tied scarves or other pieces of cloth covering the bottom halves of their faces.

There was a good deal of circumstantial evidence which, taken together, identified the appellant and his brother as the robbers. There was also direct identification evidence by the service station proprietor Mr. Watts. The appellant did not give evidence. His brother had died before the appellant's trial.

A man later identified from a photo board was instantly recognizable to Mr. Watts on the night of the robbery. He had bad scarring on his forehead by which he was apparently easily identifiable, and he had been in Mr. Watts' service station on quite a number of occasions before. Mr. Watts was shown a photo board about five days after the robbery and had no difficulty in identifying him as one of the robbers. That man was the appellant's brother. He also appeared to have no difficulty in identifying the appellant from a photo board as the other robber.…

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 Weston

Details

AGLC: R v Weston [1997] QCA 260
Case: [1997] QCA 260
Decision Date: 26/08/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Weston, the appellant was convicted by a jury of armed robbery in company. The appeal centred on the admissibility and reliability of circumstantial evidence that identified the appellant and his brother as the robbers, as well as the propriety of certain testimony regarding voice identification. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of voice identification, and if this evidence was so deficient as to render the jury's verdict unreasonable and unsupported. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge misdirected the jury concerning alleged untruths told by the appellant to a police officer.

The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of voice identification evidence and the trial judge's direction to the jury. The court needed to assess whether the evidence was properly admitted and whether it was sufficiently reliable to support the jury's verdict. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury about the appellant's alleged lies to the police officer were accurate and whether any misdirection could have influenced the jury's decision.

The court held that the evidence of voice identification was admissible and did not render the jury's verdict unreasonable. It found that while the evidence was circumstantial, it was sufficiently reliable to support the conviction. The court also determined that the trial judge did not misdirect the jury concerning the appellant's alleged lies. The judge's directions were considered to be accurate and did not prejudice the jury against the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction of the appellant. The decision underscores the importance of the reliability and admissibility of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials, as well as the need for precise and accurate jury instructions.

Orders