R v Shah

[2007] SASC 68

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Unsafe or unsatisfactory verdict
4. › Identification evidence
5. › Whether identification evidence sufficient to sustain conviction
6. › Whether jury entitled to reject timing evidence from security cameras in absence of evidence of inaccuracy
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Unsafe or unsatisfactory verdict
4. › Power of appellate court
5. › Whether verdict such that no reasonable jury could properly have returned it
6. › Whether jury's advantage in seeing witnesses capable of resolving doubt
7. › Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 353

Quick Take

Where security camera footage with uncontradicted timing evidence places the accused at a location inconsistent with presence at the crime scene, a jury cannot reject that evidence by speculation alone. The timing question is not one on which the jury enjoys an advantage over the appellate court, as it does not depend on the manner in which evidence was given.