The Queen v Dickman [2017] HCA 24

The Queen v Dickman [2017] HCA 24

The risk that the August 2011 identification evidence would unfairly prejudice the defence was minimal and could be adequately addressed by judicial direction; the admission of the evidence did not involve error and, regardless, the respondent's conviction was inevitable based on the remaining admissible evidence, so no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred.

Parties
Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: Glyn David Dickman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Appeal Against Conviction, Admissibility of Evidence, Unfair Prejudice, Substantial Miscarriage of Justice
Criminal Law Evidence Identification Evidence Appeal Against Conviction Admissibility of Evidence Unfair Prejudice Substantial 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Appellant

Glyn David Dickman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the probative value of the identification evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)
  2. 2 Whether the admission of the identification evidence occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice
  3. 3 Whether directions to the jury could ameliorate any prejudice flowing from the identification evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The risk that the August 2011 identification evidence would unfairly prejudice the defence was minimal and could be adequately addressed by judicial direction; the admission of the evidence did not involve error and, regardless, the respondent's conviction was inevitable based on the remaining admissible evidence, so no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Set aside orders 2, 3 and 4 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 23 November 2015 and in their place order that the appeal against conviction to that court be dismissed.