R v BURLING [2002] NSWCCA 298

R v BURLING [2002] NSWCCA 298

The conviction was quashed and acquittal entered because the court had a reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt due to deficiencies in identification evidence and cogent evidence pointing to the involvement of another person, Daniel Bennett, in line with M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: David Gregory Burling
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed, verdict of acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
Jury Verdict, Unreasonable Verdict, Identification Evidence, Armed Robbery, Possibility of Another as Offender
Criminal Law Jury Verdict Unreasonable Verdict Identification Evidence Armed Robbery Possibility of Another as Offender

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

David Gregory Burling

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence
  2. 2 Whether identification evidence was sufficiently reliable to support conviction
  3. 3 Whether there was cogent evidence supporting the possibility that another, Daniel Bennett, was the offender

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was quashed and acquittal entered because the court had a reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt due to deficiencies in identification evidence and cogent evidence pointing to the involvement of another person, Daniel Bennett, in line with M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed, verdict of acquittal entered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Conviction quashed