A Queensland boy who claims he was wrongly accused of a home invasion has been found not guilty, after a court ruled police officers made no effort to confirm his account, failed to gather certain evidence, and “did not bother” to take relevant witness statements.
Police brought a charge against the boy, who is of African descent, alleging he was one of five teenagers who entered a woman’s room and demanded money in October 2021. He was accused in court of being armed with a steering wheel lock.
Children’s court judge Vicki Loury threw out the case on Wednesday, on grounds that material witnesses were not asked to provide statements or called to give evidence.
Loury’s written judgment laid out police “failures” to conduct basic investigations into the incident, and said explanations for those failures were “entirely unsatisfactory”.
The judgment said police made “no effort” to confirm the boy’s account – that he was visiting a neighbouring property – when he spoke with an officer on the night of the incident.
Police located the steering wheel lock in the complainant’s room, but did not seize the item as evidence or conduct a forensic examination.
“There is no explanation in the evidence for that not having occurred,” Loury said.
Senior constable Brooke Mair, who took over the investigation into the incident about nine months later, collected CCTV evidence from nearby homes.
“[The CCTV] footage, or even stills taken from it, was not tendered in evidence,” the judgment said.
Under cross-examination, Mair was asked why police had not obtained statements from multiple people who might have been able to shed light on whether the boy was present.
These included the complainant’s brother and friend, who were both at the premises on the night of the incident, and residents at the neighbouring property where the boy stated he was at the time.
“[Mair] confirmed that she spoke to the complainant’s brother to try to get a statement from him. In the end, she did not bother as it was too hard with her rosters to obtain a statement from him.
“She did not attempt to obtain a statement from the complainant’s friend … She did not bother to follow up the defendant’s claim that he was visiting [the neighbouring property]…
“I consider the explanations given for the failure to call the complainant’s brother to give evidence or the complainant’s friend … and the failure to call any of the residents from [the neighbouring property] to be entirely unsatisfactory.”
‘Risk’ that boy was wrongly identified
The charges were brought on the basis of evidence from the complainant, who identified the boy as among the group that entered her bedroom and demanded money.
But the court found there were “weaknesses” that undermined the reliability of the identification evidence.
Earlier on the day of the incident, the complainant had seen the boy in a park with four others, all of Sudanese background, who were later involved in the home invasion.
“The complainant described all of the males in the park as being dressed in the same way wearing Nike style clothing including a jacket or hoodie. All of the males had similar styled hair. The defendant’s hair is quite distinctive.
“There is a risk that the complainant, having seen the defendant with a group of males earlier in the day, four of whom were involved in entering her bedroom later that evening, has jumped to a conclusion that the defendant was one of those boys.”
The complainant was unsure in her evidence how many people had entered the room, saying there were “about five or four of them or six”.
The judgment said the complainant, in her statement to police, had not described the defendant as being armed with any object.
“It was in a conference with the prosecutor on the morning of the trial that she said that it was the defendant who was armed with the steering wheel lock. This change in her evidence adds weight to the possibility that her memory is unreliable and she might be mistaken as to the defendant’s presence.”
