Sakhra v R

The appeal in Sakhra v R was brought by the appellant, who sought to overturn his convictions for two counts of armed robbery. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant was found guilty by a jury, despite the victims not identifying him and no objective evidence linking him to the crimes. The Crown’s case relied heavily on the testimony of a driver, who provided internally inconsistent evidence that was partly inconsistent with the appellant's involvement in the robberies. Notably, the driver had pleaded guilty but maintained his innocence during the trial, and his evidence was given through a translator.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the jury's verdicts were unreasonable, given the lack of direct identification by the victims and the absence of objective evidence connecting the appellant to the crimes. Additionally, there was objective evidence linking a person other than the appellant with the offences. The court had to consider the reliability and weight of the driver’s evidence, which was internally inconsistent and partly inconsistent with the appellant’s involvement, and the impact of the driver maintaining his innocence despite a guilty plea.

The High Court held that the jury's verdicts were unreasonable in light of the evidence presented. The driver's testimony was found to be unreliable due to its internal inconsistencies and the fact that it was partly inconsistent with the appellant’s involvement in the robberies. The court emphasised the significance of the driver’s evidence being given through a translator, which could have affected its clarity and reliability. Consequently, the convictions were quashed, and the appellant’s appeal was allowed.

No specific orders were made beyond quashing the convictions. The case underscores the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in criminal trials, particularly when the Crown's case heavily relies on a single witness whose testimony is fraught with inconsistencies.