The Queen v Alfio Licciardello

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

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:

  1. The accused is guilty of the charge that on 28 June 2008 he escaped from lawful   custody after being arrested.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. Constable Young saw that the driver of the Holden sedan was about 180 centimetres…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] ACTSC 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen presented a case against Alfio Licciardello in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, alleging that he escaped from lawful custody following his arrest on 28 June 2008. The matter was heard by a judge alone without a jury. The crux of the dispute was the identification of the accused as the individual who escaped and the subsequent proof of the offence.

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.