Markarian v The Queen [2018] NSWDC 241

Markarian v The Queen [2018] NSWDC 241

The appeal was dismissed because the judge accepted Ms Bridge's evidence about the sale of the vehicle to the appellant, rejected the credibility of the appellant and had serious doubts about Mr Robinson, and found that the appellant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that the vehicle was stolen at the time of the offence. The vehicle was in the appellant's possession, custody and power at the relevant time, and the only evidence of theft came from the appellant, whose evidence was inconsistent and untrustworthy.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal From Local Court / Appeal Against Finding That Speeding Offence Was Proved
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to pay respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['speeding Offence' 'appeal From Local Court' 'stolen Vehicle Defence' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'costs on Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'traffic Law'] ['speeding Offence' 'appeal From Local Court' 'stolen Vehicle Defence' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'costs on Appeal']

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 Appeal From Local Court / Appeal Against Finding That Speeding Offence Was Proved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant proved on the balance of probabilities that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time of the speeding offence and that he was not the driver.' 'Whether the Local Court finding that the offence was proved should be disturbed on appeal.' "Whether the appellant should be ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge accepted Ms Bridge's evidence about the sale of the vehicle to the appellant, rejected the credibility of the appellant and had serious doubts about Mr Robinson, and found that the appellant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that the vehicle was stolen at the time of the offence. The vehicle was in the appellant's possession, custody and power at the relevant time, and the only evidence of theft came from the appellant, whose evidence was inconsistent and untrustworthy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to pay respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "Order the appellant to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $5,445 within three months of today's date."]