Jamal v The Queen [2000] FCA 1195

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jamal v The Queen [2000] FCA 1195

CRIMINAL LAW – armed robbery – evidence – identification – dock identification of appellant by eye-witnesses – whether primary judge erred in permitting evidence of dock identification to be led in circumstances where evidence of previous out-of-court identification admissible – whether conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory – effect of circumstantial evidence pointing to appellant as offender – the availability of the principles governing the "proviso" in the Federal Court.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 114, 115, 137

Davies & Cody v R (1937) 57 CLR 170 at 182 referred to Alexander v R (1981) 145 CLR 395 at 399-400, 409, 410, 427 referred to R v Burchielli [1981] VR 611 at 621 referred to Gbric v Pitkethly (1992) 38 FCR 95 referred to R v Britten (1988) 51 SASR 567 at 572 considered R v Gorham (1997) 68 SASR 505 at 508 referred to R v Saxon [1998] 1 VR 503 at 513 referred to R v Demeter (1995) 77 A Crim R 462 distinguished R v Clark (1996) 91 A Crim R 46 distinguished R v Clune [1982] VR 1 at 7-8 referred to R v Carusi (1997) 92 A Crim R 52 at 55 referred to Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555 at 561-2 referred to M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487 referred to Stokes v R (1960) 105 CLR 279 at 284-5 referred to Duff v R (1979) 28 ALR 663 at 673-4 referred to Eastman v R (1997) 72 FCR 190 at 194-5 referred to Conway v R (2000) 172 ALR 185 at 240-1 referred to Wilde v R (1988) 164 CLR 365 referred to Glennon v R (1994) 179 CLR 1 referred to TOREK HASSAN JAMAL v THE QUEEN A 30 of 2000 BURCHETT, WEINBERG & KENNY JJ 30 AUGUST 2000 SYDNEY (HEARD IN CANBERRA)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY A 30 of 2000

On Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN: TOREK HASSAN JAMAL