R v King [2002] NSWCCA 365

R v King [2002] NSWCCA 365

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's identification directions, although containing a slip suggesting direct identification of the appellant, adequately warned the jury of the need for caution and caused no miscarriage of justice. The voice identification directions were also adequate. No s165 direction was required because none was sought, there was doubt whether the evidence was identification evidence within the statutory definition, and in any event the directions given amounted to an appropriate caution. The Crown case was strong and the conviction was not shown to be unsafe.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal From District Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery Whilst Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'identification Evidence' 'voice Identification' 'jury Directions' 'evidence Act 1995 S165' 'criminal Appeal Rules R.4']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['robbery Whilst Armed With an Offensive Weapon' 'identification Evidence' 'voice Identification' 'jury Directions' 'evidence Act 1995 S165' 'criminal Appeal Rules R.4']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal From District Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's directions on visual identification evidence miscarried by suggesting that Ms Lynn had directly identified the appellant as the offender." "Whether the trial judge's directions on voice identification evidence were inadequate." 'Whether a direction under s165 of the Evidence Act 1995 was required in relation to identification evidence.' 'Whether the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's identification directions, although containing a slip suggesting direct identification of the appellant, adequately warned the jury of the need for caution and caused no miscarriage of justice. The voice identification directions were also adequate. No s165 direction was required because none was sought, there was doubt whether the evidence was identification evidence within the statutory definition, and in any event the directions given amounted to an appropriate caution. The Crown case was strong and the conviction was not shown to be unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.']