R v Rockwell

[2014] QCA 321

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence
4. › Whether complainant's identification evidence so inconsistent that jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Incompetence of trial counsel
5. › Whether failure to adduce evidence and cross-examine on eye colour discrepancy deprived appellant of chance of acquittal fairly open to him
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › New or fresh evidence on appeal
5. › Residual discretion to receive new evidence not being fresh evidence
6. › Whether refusal would lead to miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Conduct of prosecutor
5. › Whether prosecutor facilitated miscarriage by referring to complainant's evidence of eye colour in address
6. › No evidence prosecutor knew of appellant's true eye colour

Quick Take

Defence counsel's failure to adduce evidence of a critical discrepancy between a complainant's description of an offender and the accused's actual physical characteristics — here, eye colour — can constitute incompetence occasioning a miscarriage of justice where it deprives the accused of a chance of acquittal that might reasonably have been open. A retrial rather than acquittal is appropriate where the outcome depends on the body of evidence that might emerge at retrial.