Jawansher v Johnson LCM [2004] NSWSC 872

Jawansher v Johnson LCM [2004] NSWSC 872

The magistrate did not refuse to weigh the identification evidence; he referred to ordinary Evidence Act admissibility and weight tests and then evaluated the evidence before him. Because there was evidence capable of supporting the conclusions that the second defendant had reasonable grounds for suspicion and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the plaintiff committed the offence, the plaintiff's remaining complaints concerned factual evaluation and disclosed no error of law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against an Order Under S 24 of the Crimes (forensic Procedures) Act 2000 for the Taking of Non Intimate Photographs / Supreme Court Summons on Questions of Law From a Local Court Magistrate's Order
Outcome
Summons dismissed. Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['non Intimate Forensic Procedure' 'reasonable Grounds for Suspicion' 'reasonable Grounds to Believe a Suspect Committed an Offence' 'identification Evidence' 'appeal on a Question of Law']
['criminal Procedure' 'forensic Procedures' 'administrative Law' 'evidence'] ['non Intimate Forensic Procedure' 'reasonable Grounds for Suspicion' 'reasonable Grounds to Believe a Suspect Committed an Offence' 'identification Evidence' 'appeal on a Question of Law']

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

Appeal Against an Order Under S 24 of the Crimes (forensic Procedures) Act 2000 for the Taking of Non Intimate Photographs / Supreme Court Summons on Questions of Law From a Local Court Magistrate's Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the magistrate erred in law by determining that admissibility and weight of identification evidence were not to be taken into account under s 25(c) of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000.' "Whether there was evidence capable of supporting the magistrate's conclusion that the second defendant suspected on reasonable grounds that the plaintiff had committed an offence." 'Whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the plaintiff had committed an indictable offence.' "Whether the plaintiff's appeal raised questions of law rather than impermissible challenges to factual evaluation."]

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate did not refuse to weigh the identification evidence; he referred to ordinary Evidence Act admissibility and weight tests and then evaluated the evidence before him. Because there was evidence capable of supporting the conclusions that the second defendant had reasonable grounds for suspicion and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the plaintiff committed the offence, the plaintiff's remaining complaints concerned factual evaluation and disclosed no error of law.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed. Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['The summons is dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs."]