Penfold v R [2016] NSWCCA 101

Penfold v R [2016] NSWCCA 101

The trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury was erroneous because a fair-minded and informed observer would have apprehended a lack of impartiality resulting from some jurors perceiving a threat by the accused; the direction given was inadequate to dispel concern. The identification evidence was problematic due to inconsistencies, possible contamination, delay, and lack of corroboration; thus, the verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'aggravated Break Enter and Steal' 'identification Evidence' 'jury Discharge' 'impartiality' 'photographic Identification Procedure' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'aggravated Break Enter and Steal' 'identification Evidence' 'jury Discharge' 'impartiality' 'photographic Identification Procedure' 'miscarriage of Justice']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury after some jurors perceived a threat by the accused to a witness' 'Whether the jury direction by the trial judge in relation to the alleged threat was inadequate' 'Whether the verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence, particularly having regard to identification evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury was erroneous because a fair-minded and informed observer would have apprehended a lack of impartiality resulting from some jurors perceiving a threat by the accused; the direction given was inadequate to dispel concern. The identification evidence was problematic due to inconsistencies, possible contamination, delay, and lack of corroboration; thus, the verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Conviction quashed.' 'Verdict of acquittal entered.']