R v RAZZAK [2004] NSWCCA 62

R v RAZZAK [2004] NSWCCA 62

The resemblance evidence and the video evidence were admissible, and although the trial judge erred by referring to circumstantial evidence as supporting the correctness of the victim's identification evidence, that error did not occasion a miscarriage of justice because the jury was clearly presented with both the weak resemblance evidence and the separate circumstantial case. The verdict was open on the evidence, including the video footage, and no sentencing error or manifest excess was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From District Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['resemblance Evidence' 'identification Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'video Evidence' 'right to Silence' 'jones V Dunkel Direction' 'admissions by Conduct' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'manifest Excessiveness' 'malicious Wounding With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm' 'possession of Firearm Without License or Permit']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['resemblance Evidence' 'identification Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'video Evidence' 'right to Silence' 'jones V Dunkel Direction' 'admissions by Conduct' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'manifest Excessiveness' 'malicious Wounding With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm' 'possession of Firearm Without License or Permit']

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 / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From District Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the victim's resemblance evidence from a photographic video array." 'Whether the trial judge erred in admitting video recordings, including footage said by the Crown to show a re-enactment of the offence.' 'Whether the jury directions on identification, circumstantial evidence, silence, Jones v Dunkel, and admissions by conduct were erroneous or inadequate.' 'Whether the verdict was unreasonable.' 'Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or affected by sentencing error.']

Ratio Decidendi

The resemblance evidence and the video evidence were admissible, and although the trial judge erred by referring to circumstantial evidence as supporting the correctness of the victim's identification evidence, that error did not occasion a miscarriage of justice because the jury was clearly presented with both the weak resemblance evidence and the separate circumstantial case. The verdict was open on the evidence, including the video footage, and no sentencing error or manifest excess was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed.']