Honeysett v R [2014] HCA 29: Armed Robbery and CCTV

Today (13 August 2014), the High Court has unanimously allowed an appeal against a conviction for armed robbery in the case of Honeysett v R [2014] HCA 29.

Facts

In 2011, Mr Honeysett was convicted following a trial by jury in the District Court of New South Wales of the armed robbery of an employee of a suburban hotel.  The robbery was recorded by closed-circuit television cameras (CCTV).

At trial, over objection, the prosecution adduced evidence from an anatomist, Professor Henneberg, of anatomical characteristics that were common to Mr Honeysett and the offender shown in the CCTV footage. Professor Henneberg's identification of these characteristics was based on looking at the CCTV footage of the robbery and at images of Mr Honeysett taken while he was in police custody.

On Appeal

Mr Honeysett appealed against his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, submitting that Professor Henneberg's evidence was inadmissible evidence of opinion.  The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed with the trial judge that Professor Henneberg's evidence was admissible because it was evidence of an opinion that was wholly or substantially based on his "specialised knowledge" within the meaning of s 79(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).  The Court accepted that Professor Henneberg's specialised knowledge was based on his study of anatomy and his experience in viewing CCTV images. 

High Court Appeal

By special leave, Mr Honeysett appealed to the High Court.

The High Court held that Professor Henneberg's opinion was not based wholly or substantially on his knowledge of anatomy:  his opinion regarding each of the characteristics of the offender in the CCTV footage was based on his subjective impression of what he saw when he looked at the images. As Professor Henneberg's opinion did not fall within the exception in s 79(1), the High Court held that it was an error of law to admit the evidence. The High Court quashed Mr Honeysett's conviction and ordered a new trial.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Honeysett v R [2014] HCA 29