Regina v Nelson - [1999] NSWCCA 221

CITATION: Regina v Nelson [1999] NSWCCA 221

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60062/99

HEARING DATE(S): 2 August 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 August 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Robert Lloyd Nelson

JUDGMENT OF: Newman J at 1; Sperling J at 2; Greg James J at 31

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/21/0065; 97/21/0692

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Grogan DCJ

COUNSEL: J I Doris (Appellant)
P G Berman (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Neil J O'Connor & Associates (Appellant)
S E O'Connor (Crown)l

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - picture identification evidence, whether error in not excluding - whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.

ACTS CITED: Evidence Act 1995, ss 115(7), 137

CASES CITED:
Cook (1998) 126 NTR 17, Gipp (1998) 194 CLR 106, Jones (1997) 191 CLR 439, M (1994) 181 CLR 487, Richards (CCA (NSW), 27 November 1995, unreported)

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed; Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60062/99

NEWMAN J
SPERLING J
GREG JAMES J
Tuesday 10 August 1999

REGINA v Robert Lloyd NELSON
JUDGMENT

1    NEWMAN J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Justice Sperling and I agree with the reasons he gives and the orders he proposes.

**********

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60062/99

NEWMAN J
SPERLING J
GREG JAMES J
Tuesday 10 August 1999

REGINA v Robert Lloyd NELSON
JUDGMENT
2    SPERLING J: On 16 October 1998, the appellant was convicted of the following offences in a trial before Grogan DCJ and a jury: first, that on 24 June 1996 at Holsworthy he stole motor vehicle registration no. TXM 901; secondly, that on 29 June 1996 at Birrong, being armed, he assaulted Lynne Williams with intent to rob her; thirdly, that on 29 June 1996 at Birrong, being armed, he robbed John Waterson; and, fourthly, that on 29 June 1996, being armed, he robbed Marie Nicolaou.
3    So far as concerns the events of 29 June 1996, the Crown case was as follows. The accused entered the Tuckerbag Supermarket at Birrong. He held a sawn-off shotgun against Ms Williams, an employee, demanding money from a cash register. She noticed a green coloured tattoo on the back of one of the appellant’s hands. The cash register failed to open.
4    Another employee, Mr Waterson, was then accosted by the appellant. Money was again demanded and was given to the appellant from one of the cash registers.
5    Another employee, Ms Nicolaou handed over further money on demand. She also noticed a green coloured tattoo on the back of one of the offender’s hands. The appellant had tattoos on his hands similar to those described by the witnesses.
6    On 30 June 1996, Mr Waterson made a picture identification of the appellant from eleven photographs shown to him by the police.
7    Many months later, Ms Williams, Ms Nicolaou and another employee who was in the store at the time, Ms Pignat, each, separately, failed to make a positive…

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 Regina v Nelson

Details

AGLC: Regina v Nelson [1999] NSWCCA 221
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 221
Decision Date: 10 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Nelson was a case that came before the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Nelson, was convicted of armed robbery. The dispute centred around the admissibility and weight of picture identification evidence provided by one of the victims of the robbery. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in not excluding the identification evidence and if the error rendered the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's failure to exclude the identification evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court had to assess the reliability and probative value of the identification evidence in the context of the overall evidence presented at the trial. The court also needed to consider the potential impact of any error on the safety and satisfaction of the verdict.

The High Court found that the trial judge did indeed err in not excluding the identification evidence. However, the court concluded that the error did not render the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court held that the identification evidence, while not of the highest quality, was sufficiently reliable when considered alongside the other evidence in the case. The court emphasised that the jury was well-equipped to assess the credibility and weight of the identification evidence, and that the error did not undermine the overall safety and satisfaction of the verdict. The High Court ultimately upheld the conviction, finding that the error did not affect the outcome of the trial.

No final orders were made in the text provided.

Orders