Legal Research
Cases
Tasmania v Chatters

Tasmania v Chatters

Case [2013] TASSC 61 11 October 2013

Admissibility of Evidence

Judicial Review

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2013] TASSC 61

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Chatters [2013] TASSC 61

PARTIES: STATE OF TASMANIA
v

CHATTERS, Nathan Grant

FILE NO:  40/2013
DELIVERED ON:  11 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  23 September 2013
JUDGMENT OF:  Porter J

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Evidence unfair to admit or improperly obtained – Particular cases – Police Manual containing orders, directions, procedures and instructions – Provision in Manual that identification from photographs only to be made by a witness where a suspect has been given the opportunity and declined to take part in an identification parade – Identification of accused by complainant from photoboard – No identification parade offered to accused – Photoboard identification conducted at the request of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions – Evidence of identification not obtained improperly.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s 138.
Robinson v Woolworths Ltd (2005) 64 NSWLR 612; Tasmania v Seabourne [2010] TASSC 35, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2684]
Criminal Law – Evidence – Identification evidence – Admissibility – Generally – Identification from CCTV footage of accused by police officer familiar with accused – Evidence suggested accused of different appearance than in the footage and had a distinctive manner of walking – Evidence relevant and admissible.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s 79.
Smith v R (2001) 206 CLR 650, considered.
R v Leung (1999) 47 NSWLR 405, R v Drollett [2005] NSWCCA 356, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2928]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Identification evidence – Modes of identification – Photographs – Generally – Identification from CCTV footage of accused by police officer familiar with accused – Evidence suggested accused of different appearance than in the footage and had a distinctive manner of walking – Evidence relevant and admissible.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s 79.
Smith v R (2001) 206 CLR 650, considered.

R v Leung (1999) 47 NSWLR 405, R v Drollett [2005] NSWCCA 356, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2934]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             State of Tasmania:  J Shapiro
             Accused:  T Kovacic
Solicitors:
             State of Tasmania:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  Mackie Crompton

Judgment Number: [2013] TASSC 61
Number of paragraphs: 64

File No 206/213
Serial No 61/2013

TASMANIA v NATHAN GRANT CHATTERS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PORTER J
11 October 2013

The accused has pleaded not guilty to one count of armed robbery and one count of attempting to interfere with a witness. The particulars of the first count are that on 26 January 2013 the accused, whilst armed with a knife, robbed a Jason Davidson of a wallet containing cash and documents. The particulars of the second count are that on 16 June 2013, the accused approached Mr Davidson at the Magistrates Court where he was due to give evidence against the accused in preliminary proceedings, and said the words "Don't do it and I'll forget you exist. I nearly had already."

I am to determine a…

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 Tasmania v Chatters

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Chatters [2013] TASSC 61
Case: [2013] TASSC 61
Decision Date: 11 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Tasmanian Supreme Court, the case of Tasmania v Chatters involved a criminal prosecution against the defendant, Chatters, on various charges. The primary dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence obtained through a photoboard identification process, as opposed to a live identification parade. The complainant had identified Chatters from a photoboard, and the prosecution argued that the evidence was admissible and not unfairly obtained, while the defence contended that the process was improper and prejudicial.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained through the photoboard identification was admissible and not unfairly obtained, particularly given the provision in the Police Manual that identification from photographs should only occur if a suspect declines to participate in a live identification parade. The court had to consider whether the exclusion of such evidence would result in a miscarriage of justice and whether the evidence was obtained in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Police Manual.

The court held that the evidence was not unfairly obtained or improperly procured. It noted that the complainant had positively identified Chatters from the photoboard, and there was no suggestion that the photoboard process was conducted in a manner that was inherently unfair or prejudicial. The court further observed that the identification process was carried out at the request of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which had a legitimate interest in the identification of the accused. The court concluded that the evidence was properly obtained and did not unfairly prejudice the defendant.

Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence of the photoboard identification was admissible, and the trial could proceed. The final orders of the court confirmed the admissibility of the evidence and allowed the prosecution to continue with the case against Chatters.

Orders