R v MCLEOD [2008] NSWDC 188

R v MCLEOD [2008] NSWDC 188

Although the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that two men committed the charged offences and that each was criminally responsible under a joint criminal enterprise, the Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was one of those men. The visual resemblance evidence was too general to add substance, the jacket similarity was affected by the Crown case that the co-offender wore it, and the voice-identification evidence of alleged admissions, while probably honest and likely accurate, left reasonable doubt as to both the speaker's identity and precisely what was said.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judge Alone Trial; Verdict
Outcome
Not guilty on each count.
Legal Topics
['larceny' 'entering a Building With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'malicious Damage' 'identification Evidence' 'voice Identification' 'right to Silence' 'judge Alone Trial' 'joint Criminal Enterprise']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['larceny' 'entering a Building With Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence' 'malicious Damage' 'identification Evidence' 'voice Identification' 'right to Silence' 'judge Alone Trial' 'joint Criminal Enterprise']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judge Alone Trial; Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was one of the two offenders who entered the Currarong RSL Club, stole nine bottles of alcohol, and damaged a glass door.' 'Whether visual resemblance from CCTV footage and similarity of a jacket supported identification of the accused as the offender wearing a T-shirt.' 'Whether alleged admissions overheard by correctional officers, based on voice identification, reliably identified the accused as the speaker and accurately conveyed what was said.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that two men committed the charged offences and that each was criminally responsible under a joint criminal enterprise, the Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was one of those men. The visual resemblance evidence was too general to add substance, the jacket similarity was affected by the Crown case that the co-offender wore it, and the voice-identification evidence of alleged admissions, while probably honest and likely accurate, left reasonable doubt as to both the speaker's identity and precisely what was said.

Court Disposition

Not guilty on each count.

Orders

  • ['In relation to each count in the indictment, there will be a verdict of not guilty.']