The Queen v Craig Anthony Secombe , , the Queen and Joseph Damien Butkovic

The applicants, Craig Anthony Secombe and Joseph Damien Butkovic, appealed their convictions and sentences in the Court of Appeal. The applicants were convicted of aggravated burglary, involving entry into a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the unanimity of the proof of the element that converted the burglary into an aggravated burglary were deficient, and whether there was an error in the directions concerning the element of trespass in the offence of aggravated burglary. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge had impermissibly commented on the applicants' failure to give evidence, and if the directions to the jury regarding the reliability of identification evidence were deficient.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no deficiency in the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding unanimity or the element of trespass in the offence of aggravated burglary. The court also concluded that the trial judge did not impermissibly comment on the applicants' failure to give evidence. However, the court did find that the trial judge's directions regarding the reliability of identification evidence were deficient, as they did not relate the factors which may render identification unreliable to the circumstances of the case. Despite this deficiency, the court found that the convictions were safe and satisfactory. The court also found that the applicants' sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge did not err in fixing the date upon which the applicants were eligible for release on parole. The court further found that the trial judge did not err in finding equal culpability of both applicants, despite the applicants' impaired mental functioning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' appeals against conviction and sentence. The convictions were upheld, and the sentences were found to be appropriate. The applicants' applications for leave to appeal to the High Court were also refused.