THE QUEEN v ALFIO LICCIARDELLO [2011] ACTSC 96 (2 June 2011)
CRIMINAL LAW – judge alone trial – question of identification – offence proved – verdict of guilty entered
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 160
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 32 (1)
No. SCC 55 of 2010
Judge: Nield A/J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 2 June 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 55 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
THE QUEEN
v
ALFIO LICCIARDELLO
ORDER
Judge: Nield A/J
Date: 2 June 2011
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The accused is guilty of the charge that on 28 June 2008 he escaped from lawful custody after being arrested.
At about 6.30 pm on 28 June 2008 Constable Alan Young was driving a marked Police vehicle in a southerly direction along Northbourne Avenue in Braddon, in the ACT, towards the intersection of Northbourne Avenue with Girrahween Street with Constable Jason Hall as the front seat passenger.
As he drove the Police vehicle towards the intersection, Constable Young was aware of two things – one thing was that there was a vehicle being driven ahead of the Police vehicle towards to intersection at about the same speed at which he was driving the Police vehicle, and the other thing was that the traffic light facing the vehicles changed from green to orange when the preceding vehicle was about 60 metres from the stop line painted on Northbourne Avenue at the intersection.
Then, when the preceding vehicle was about a car’s length from the stop line, the traffic light facing the vehicle changed from orange to red and the driver of the vehicle drove through the intersection.
On seeing the preceding vehicle being driven through the intersection contrary to the red light, Constable Young activated the Police vehicle’s flashing lights and gave chase to the vehicle, causing the driver of it to stop it adjacent to the Mantra Apartments on Northbourne Avenue.
Constable Young stopped the Police vehicle behind and to the right side of the other vehicle, as can be seen in the recording taken by the Police vehicle’s video camera, see Exhibit C, and as shown by Constable Young’s sketch, see Exhibit B. After the vehicles had been stopped, the driver of the other vehicle left the vehicle and Constable Young and Constable Hall left the Police vehicle and the driver of the other vehicle approached Constable Young. As it transpired, the other vehicle was a blue coloured Holden Commodore sedan, number plate ACT YBR 26V.
As the driver of the Holden sedan approached Constable Young, he and Constable Hall noticed that there were two passengers in the vehicle, both females, one on the front passenger’s seat and the other on the rear seat. Later, the front seat passenger identified herself as Marion Barr and the rear seat passenger identified herself as Vanessa Willis to Constable Hall.
Constable Young saw that the driver of the Holden sedan was about 180 centimetres…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read The Queen v Alfio Licciardello and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] ACTSC 96
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the person who escaped from lawful custody. This involved assessing the reliability and credibility of the identification evidence, as well as corroborating evidence that supported the escape. The court had to decide if the identification was so compelling and the escape sufficiently proven to warrant a verdict of guilty.
The court concluded that the identification of the accused was reliable and the evidence was sufficient to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The judge found that the identification by the witnesses was clear and consistent, and the escape was corroborated by the CCTV footage and other evidence. Therefore, the court entered a verdict of guilty against the accused. The orders of the court reflected this finding, declaring the accused guilty of the charge of escaping from lawful custody.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The accused is guilty of the charge that on 28 June 2008 he escaped from lawful custody after being arrested.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.