District Court

R v Wilkinson [2016] QDC 199 (16/34) Long SC DCJ 9 August 2016

Full-text: QDC16-199.pdf

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – Where the applicant is charged with armed robbery – Where the prosecution seek to compare the images of the applicant’s car with those captured on CCTV footage, as well as the similarity of the clothing and disguise worn by the robber, with items located at the applicant’s residence – Where the prosecution intend to rely on the evidence of a witness in order to conduct such an image comparison – Where the applicant seeks the exclusion of this evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – GENERALLY – Where the applicant seeks the recording of a witness’ observations upon her consideration of a photoboard and that photoboard, be excluded as evidence at the trial – Where the identification process was conducted in excess of 10 months after the commission of the offence – Where the witness’ final endorsement on the back of the photoboard was affected by the input of the police officer – Where the evidence is equivocal and lacks probity – Where the evidence would invite potential misuse by invitation to use the evidence beyond its probative value – Whether to exclude the evidence as an exercise of judicial discretion

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – Where the applicant seeks the exclusion of the evidence obtained by a search, on the basis that the search was not authorised by s 160 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and/or that the obtaining of the post-search approval did not occur in accordance with s 161 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and also illegally – Whether the police officer who made the application for post-search approval was the police officer who actually formed the suspicion necessary to engage s 160(1) of the Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 – Where the post-search approval was neither sought nor granted in accordance with s 161 of the Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 – Whether to exclude the evidence obtained as an exercise of discretion on public policy considerations, on the basis of the illegality in failure of compliance with the requirements of s 161 of the Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000