DPP v Brownlie & Brownlie (a Pseudonym) (No 2)

[2015] VSCA 267

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Interlocutory appeal
3. › Permanent stay of proceedings
4. › Abuse of process
5. › Whether charges foredoomed to fail
6. › Whether incompetent police investigation rendered trial unfair
7. › Whether judge correct to grant permanent stay
8. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 295(3), 296
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Identification of objects
4. › Whether evidence of identification capable of amounting to positive identification
5. › Whether identification evidence sufficient to support charges
6. › Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), ss 35, 36, 37
1. Criminal Law
2. › Practice and procedure
3. › Permanent stay
4. › Loss or destruction of evidence
5. › Whether missing evidence renders trial unfair
6. › Whether prejudice can be ameliorated by judicial direction

Quick Take

A complainant's evidence that they recognise a watch or item of jewellery as theirs — based on long familiarity, distinctive features, or personal history with the item — is capable of amounting to positive identification sufficient to support a theft charge, and deficiencies in police investigation and record-keeping that might have assisted the defence provide insufficient justification for a permanent stay where the missing evidence only 'might' have assisted.