R v Gee [2000] NSWCCA 198

R v Gee [2000] NSWCCA 198

The appeal failed because, read as a whole and in light of the way the trial was conducted, the summing-up on coincidence evidence did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice; the Crown case was not dependent on coincidence evidence but rested principally on recognition evidence for counts one, two and four and circumstantial evidence for count five. The evidence that Ms Paterson and Mr Goldsborough had earlier positively recognised the appellant in the photographs was admissible after they were cross-examined as unfavourable witnesses and denied making positive identifications; the police evidence was permitted under s43 and, by s60, could be used as evidence of recognition, with no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Armed Robbery / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['coincidence Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'recognition Evidence' 'hearsay' 'unfavourable Witnesses' 'out of Court Identification' 'armed Robbery']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['coincidence Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'recognition Evidence' 'hearsay' 'unfavourable Witnesses' 'out of Court Identification' 'armed Robbery']

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 for Armed Robbery / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's directions on coincidence evidence were inadequate and caused a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether evidence from police officers that Ms Paterson and Mr Goldsborough had earlier positively recognised the appellant in security camera photographs was admissible after those witnesses gave less positive evidence at trial.' 'Whether the recognition evidence should have been rejected under s137 of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because, read as a whole and in light of the way the trial was conducted, the summing-up on coincidence evidence did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice; the Crown case was not dependent on coincidence evidence but rested principally on recognition evidence for counts one, two and four and circumstantial evidence for count five. The evidence that Ms Paterson and Mr Goldsborough had earlier positively recognised the appellant in the photographs was admissible after they were cross-examined as unfavourable witnesses and denied making positive identifications; the police evidence was permitted under s43 and, by s60, could be used as evidence of recognition, with no...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']