Jamal v The Queen [2000] FCA 1195

Jamal v The Queen [2000] FCA 1195

The appeal was dismissed because it was open to the trial judge to admit the dock identification evidence. The eye-witnesses had each previously selected the appellant from a video photoboard, making the dock identifications supplementary to admissible out-of-court identifications, and the judge considered the matters required by s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), found the evidence had significant probative value when viewed with the other evidence, and gave an appropriate warning about identification evidence. The conviction was not unsafe or unsatisfactory because the Crown case, including the identification evidence and substantial corroborative circumstantial evidence, was very...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Armed Robbery / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery' 'identification Evidence' 'dock Identification' 'picture Identification Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'proviso Principles in Criminal Appeals']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['armed Robbery' 'identification Evidence' 'dock Identification' 'picture Identification Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'proviso Principles in Criminal Appeals']

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 From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in admitting in-court or dock identification evidence from two eye-witnesses under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).' "Whether the appellant's conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory because of the alleged unreliability of the identification evidence." 'Whether, if admission of the dock identification evidence was erroneous, any miscarriage of justice resulted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because it was open to the trial judge to admit the dock identification evidence. The eye-witnesses had each previously selected the appellant from a video photoboard, making the dock identifications supplementary to admissible out-of-court identifications, and the judge considered the matters required by s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), found the evidence had significant probative value when viewed with the other evidence, and gave an appropriate warning about identification evidence. The conviction was not unsafe or unsatisfactory because the Crown case, including the identification evidence and substantial corroborative circumstantial evidence, was very...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.']