Warne v The King

The appeal concerned a conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, Warne, by Walmsley AJ in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Warne appealed against his conviction, arguing that the guilty verdict was unreasonable, and also appealed against his sentence.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable, particularly in light of the identification evidence provided by multiple witnesses. This involved considering the reliability and credibility of those identifications and whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the use of such evidence. Specifically, the court had to consider if the judge erred by failing to direct the jury that multiple sources of identification evidence cannot support each other, and whether the identifications were independent. The court also had to consider if the trial judge erred in failing to give a *Murray* direction. In relation to the sentence appeal, the court considered whether there was a parity principle breach due to a co-offender receiving a different sentence, and whether the primary judge erred by not considering section 11(3) of the *Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005* (ACT) when declining to order that the sentence be served by intensive correction order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the verdict was not unreasonable. The court was satisfied that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the identification evidence were adequate and that the identifications were sufficiently independent. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed, with the court finding no error in the sentencing judge's approach to the parity principle or the consideration of the intensive correction order. The court did, however, make orders regarding the practical implementation of the sentence having been stayed pending the appeal.