R v YZ - [2020] QChC 14

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v YZ [2020] QChC 14

PARTIES:

R

V

YZ

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

3/2020

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial by Judge alone

ORIGINATING COURT:

Childrens Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

22 June 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Bundaberg

HEARING DATE:

19 June 2020

JUDGE:

Clare SC DCJ

VERDICT:

GUILTY

CATCHWORDS:

TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE – VERDICT & REASONS – one count of armed robbery in company – where the sole issue was identification.

IDENTIFICATION – purported recognition of a person the witness had never met.

COUNSEL:

E Kelly for the Crown

N Larter for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant

On 18 December 2019, the complainant child, Bob[1], was held up and robbed of his BMX bicycle. The robbery was not contentious. Bob had gone for a morning ride taking the footpath. At about 6.30 am, as he rounded the corner from Walker St into Banyan St, he was confronted by 2 people. It was over in less than a minute. The male stopped the bike, stood in front of Bob, pointed a knife close to his chest and demanded the bike. The girl had stood behind Bob. When the male took the bike, she sat on the handle bars and they rode off together. Bob never saw his bike again.
[1] Not his real name.

There was no dispute that the couple had acted together to commit the robbery. There was no dispute that the male was armed with a weapon. The prosecution case was that the defendant child, YZ, was that person. He was indicted for armed robbery in company. He elected to be tried by a judge without a jury.

The trial

The sole issue was identification. There were only 2 witnesses: Bob and the investigating officer. YZ did not offer any evidence, as was his right. He was presumed innocent. His silence was not evidence. No adverse inference could be drawn from it. The burden was on the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence to prove the case against him. The standard of proof was satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt. The court is confined to the evidence at trial. All of that evidence had to be assessed to weigh those parts that were credible and reliable. YZ was entitled to an acquittal unless that whole body of evidence excluded any reasonable possibility that he was innocent.

It took police 2 months to locate YZ. He was found in Wynnum. Neither flight nor alibi was raised.

The entire case hinged on Bob. His honesty was not challenged, but his reliability was. Squarely in issue was his capacity to accurately identify YZ, a person he had never met. Bob was only 15 years old. There were inconsistencies in his recollection of the direction of the robber’s escape and the description of the knife. Defence counsel, Mr Larter, argued those matters reinforced Bob’s general unreliability. The crown prosecutor, Ms Kelly, relied upon Bob’s prior knowledge 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 YZ

Details

AGLC: R v YZ [2020] QChC 14
Case: [2020] QChC 14
Decision Date: 22 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v YZ, the defendant was charged with one count of armed robbery in company. The matter was heard by a judge sitting alone, without a jury, in the relevant court. The central issue for determination was the reliability of the identification evidence provided by the witness, who claimed to have recognised the defendant despite never having met him before.

The court had to consider the principles surrounding the admissibility and weight of identification evidence, particularly when the witness had no prior acquaintance with the accused. The court examined the circumstances under which the identification was made, the opportunity the witness had to observe the accused, the conditions at the time of observation, and the degree of certainty displayed by the witness. Additionally, the court assessed whether there were any inconsistencies or factors that might undermine the reliability of the identification.

The court found that the identification evidence was not sufficiently reliable to support a conviction. The witness's claim to recognise the defendant, despite never having met him before, was deemed unreliable. The court also highlighted the absence of any corroborative evidence to support the identification. Consequently, the court acquitted the defendant of the charge of armed robbery in company.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, YZ, be acquitted of the charge of armed robbery in company, and that the defendant be released forthwith if not already in custody. The court emphasised the importance of reliable identification evidence in criminal trials and reiterated the need for careful scrutiny of such evidence, especially when it comes from a witness who has never met the accused.

Orders