7 Sept 2023
Although the judge did not give the s126(2) direction at the moment of the dock identifications, the brief and fleeting nature of the references, the clear in‑court instruction to the jury to put those dock identifications to one side, and the full s126 warning in the summing up together meant there was no material error or real risk of miscarriage; the conviction stands.
28 Jul 2021
The Court held there was good reason in the circumstances not to follow a formal identification procedure and, in any event, the Crown proved the reliability of the victim's visual identifications; the trial judge's directions, including the s126 warning and caution about dock identification, were adequate; and the sentencing starting point and the discount for the appellant's mental health and alcohol addiction were within range and not unlawful. Consequently the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.
17 Nov 2020
The trial judge erred in law by treating the proposed showing of the arrest photographs as a dock identification and by misframing the s8 analysis, but the exclusion produced at most a speculative possibility of a different outcome and not a reasonable possibility such that a miscarriage of justice is established; accordingly convictions stand. Applications by Tapaevalu for extension of time and to adduce fresh sentencing evidence were granted but his appeal against the 17-year minimum sentence was dismissed as not manifestly unjust given his assessed culpability.
2 Oct 2019
The trial Judge did not err in refusing to discharge the jury because the inadmissible opinion linking two sightings was not so central or prejudicial that it could not be remedied by a clear, firm judicial direction; given other admissible evidence and the Judge's summing up, there was no miscarriage of justice and the appeal is dismissed.
18 Jul 2019
The Court held there was a 'good reason' under s 45(4)(e) and related authority for not conducting a formal identification procedure because the complainant identified the defendant to police at the scene soon after the offence and recognised him as someone known; the appellant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the identification was unreliable; the visual identification was therefore admissible under s 45(1) and, on re-evaluation, reliable so the conviction was upheld.
11 Apr 2019
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances of the informal identification produced a reliable identification under s45(2) Evidence Act 2006; the identification was therefore inadmissible and, absent that evidence, there was no case to support the conviction, which was set aside.
21 Feb 2019
The High Court found the Judge erred in using inadmissible hearsay about the appellant's car being in the carpark, but held the visual identification was admissible because a formal photo‑montage procedure complied with s45(3)(b) and the complainant's identification was reliable; the hearsay error did not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice, so the appeal was dismissed.
22 Jun 2018
Given the context the inadvertent references to prior offending were of limited relevance and not so prejudicial as to cause a miscarriage of justice; the photo‑board was properly used given the complainant's limited prior contact and uncertainty of identity; and the prosecutor's remarks were legitimate comparisons of evidential weight rather than impermissible comment on the defendant's silence, therefore no relief was warranted and the appeal is dismissed.
12 Apr 2018
Complainant's identification evidence was inadmissible and unreliable given contemporaneous equivocation (111 call, police notes, statement), poor viewing conditions and risk of misidentification of similar neighbours; even if admissible it should have been excluded under s8 because its minimal probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Those errors caused a miscarriage of justice, requiring quashing of convictions and ordering a retrial.
6 Dec 2017
Photographic identification was admissible and sufficiently reliable given prior acquaintance, proximity and corroborating detail; recall of the identification witness was lawful and non-prejudicial (trial counsel consented); the judge's answers to the jury were accurate and did not misstate the burden or convert identification into a fact of whereabouts; prosecutorial remarks were peripheral and did not cause miscarriage; a Papadopoulos direction was not required before a majority verdict direction in the circumstances; sentencing fell within the appropriate Mako range and the judge acted wi…