Regina v Lee [2000] NSWCCA 392

Regina v Lee [2000] NSWCCA 392

The additional identification directions did not diminish the earlier proper warnings but identified the relevant weaknesses in the evidence for the jury; the photographic identifications by Mrs Jones and Mr MacMillan were not merely ambiguous 'looks like' evidence and were open to the jury; and the sentencing judge made no error in declining to find special circumstances requiring a different ratio between the minimum and additional terms.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['assault With Intent to Rob' 'identification Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'special Circumstances' 'protective Custody']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['assault With Intent to Rob' 'identification Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'special Circumstances' 'protective Custody']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's additional directions concerning the identification evidence of Mrs Jones and Mr MacMillan were inadequate and occasioned a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the photographic identifications by Mrs Jones and Mr MacMillan amounted to positive identification evidence capable of being considered by the jury.' 'Whether special circumstances required adjustment of the proportion between the minimum term and additional term of the sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The additional identification directions did not diminish the earlier proper warnings but identified the relevant weaknesses in the evidence for the jury; the photographic identifications by Mrs Jones and Mr MacMillan were not merely ambiguous 'looks like' evidence and were open to the jury; and the sentencing judge made no error in declining to find special circumstances requiring a different ratio between the minimum and additional terms.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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