ME v R [2012] NSWCCA 237

ME v R [2012] NSWCCA 237

The victim's contemporaneous recognition that the men who attacked him were the same men with whom he had spoken and walked seconds earlier was sufficient for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The matters relied on by the applicant did not impugn that recognition evidence, and the CCTV evidence did not raise a reasonable alternative hypothesis involving other persons.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unreasonable Verdict' 'identification Evidence' 'recognition Evidence' 'robbery in Company Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm']

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 Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence." 'Whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that ME was one of the persons who attacked the victim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The victim's contemporaneous recognition that the men who attacked him were the same men with whom he had spoken and walked seconds earlier was sufficient for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The matters relied on by the applicant did not impugn that recognition evidence, and the CCTV evidence did not raise a reasonable alternative hypothesis involving other persons.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']