Identification Evidence (Qld)
Identification Evidence (Qld)
In every criminal case, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged or participated in the commission of an offence. In some cases, this requires the positive identification of the defendant as the person who committed the acts. Identification may involve an eyewitness giving evidence that the defendant is the person they saw committing the offence. It may also involve the defendant being identified from CCTV footage.
Principles of identification
The general principles of identifying an offender are set out in the case of Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555. In that case it was stated
“..the seductive effect of identification evidence has so frequently led to proven miscarriages of justice that courts have felt obliged to lay down special rules in relation to the directions which judges must given in criminal trials where identification is a significant issue”.
There are numerous ways a defendant can be identified.
Identification from photographs or photo boards
Photographs and photo boards are difficult to use as the basis for identification evidence. This is because they are often taken from a person’s mobile phone and the picture isn’t clear. Pictures can also be black and white or blurry.
Under section 617(1)(b) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, where the police ask a witness to attempt to identify an offender from a photo board, the photo board must have at least 12 photos, of which one photograph must be the suspect and the remaining 11 must be persons with a similar appearance to the suspect.
In the case of Alexander v The Queen (1981) CLR 395, the High Court found that evidence of identification given by reference to photographs can be admitted. It was established here that
“when identification is attempted with the aid of photographs, there are introduced peculiar difficulties, due to the various ways in which photographic representations differ from nature: their two dimensional and static quality, the fact that they are often black and white and the clear and well-lit picture of the subject which they usually provide”.
Voice identification
Voice identification evidence can be given by playing a recording of a persons’ voice to determine whether or not the voice on the recording is the same as the voice of the defendant.
Voice identification can be problematic as some peoples’ voices can sound similar. It is important to note that voice identification should not be based on opinion only but on all the material before the court.
In the case of Neville v The Queen (2004) 145, it was held at trial that the admission of evidence of persons who have familiarity with the voice which is to be identified, was ultimately a decision a jury can make, having regard to their own views on the matter from the material before the Court. This was to occur irrespective of the opinion or identification evidence which may have been adduced by the Prosecution.
Identification of things
The court may at times require the identification of a thing such as a wallet, a knife, an item of clothing worn at the time of the offence, or a car. The identification of a thing can be used to particularise an offence. It can also assist with the identification of a person, who may be recognised whilst holding or wearing a particular thing.
Identification can also be done through DNA or fingerprint evidence that was left at the scene of a crime.
Video footage
Video footage from CCTV cameras, footage from body-worn cameras used by police or even a recording from a person’s phone can also be used as identification evidence. However, it is important to be aware that the admissibility of such evidence may be subject to challenge.
To determine whether video evidence is admissible, the court will look at the circumstances in which the recording was made, whether it was made in an area that a person would reasonably expect to be private (such as a bathroom) and whether the presence of security cameras was signposted.
If video footage was taken illegally it may be found to be inadmissible as evidence. This finding would be made during a proceeding known as a voir dire. Whether video evidence obtained improperly will be excluded as evidence depends on the circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the impropriety, the seriousness of the charges and the probative value of the evidence.
If you require legal advice or representation in a criminal law matter or in any other legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
Related Content
Thirushka holds a Bachelor of Laws and a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from Bond University. She was admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Thirushka has experience in criminal, family and civil law. She frequently appears in Queensland Magistrates and District Courts in criminal matters ranging from common assault, drink driving, sexual offences, and property offences to domestic violence. Whilst her experience is mainly in the criminal sphere, Thirushka also practices in civil law, and has experience in drafting letters of demand, claims and defences. She also has a keen interest in family law.
Affordable Lawyers
Our Go To Court Lawyers will assist you in all areas of law. We specialise in providing legal advice urgently – at the time when you need it most. If you need a lawyer right now, today, we can help you – no matter where you are in Australia.How It Works
1. You speak directly to a lawyer
When you call the Go To Court Legal Hotline, you will be connected directly to a lawyer, every time.
2. Get your legal situation assessed
We determine the best way forward in your legal matter, free of charge. If you want to go ahead and book a face-to-face appointment, we will connect you with a specialist in your local area.
3. We arrange everything as needed
If you want to go ahead and book a fact-to-face appointment, we will connect you with a specialist in your local area no matter where you are and even at very short notice.
Related Law Topics
Child Witnesses in Criminal Matters (Qld)
Children often give evidence in criminal law matters. Unfortunately, most children giving evidence are victims of crimes. Some, however, may give evidence as a witness to a crime. There are special rules that apply to child witnesses. This offers extra protection and support for children throughout the court process. This ....
Posted in:
Evidence
Right to Silence In Canberra When the police suspect that a person has committed an offence, they may ask the person to take part in an interview. A person cannot be arrested for the purpose of questioning, and unless a person has been arrested for an offence, they do not ....
Posted in:
Evidence
Police Procedures
Competence and Compellability of Witnesses
Under the Evidence Act 1995, everyone is presumed to be competent to give evidence and any competent witness can be compelled to give evidence. However, the presumption of competence can be rebutted if a party can demonstrate that the person lacks capacity. The act also sets up exceptions to this ....
Posted in:
Evidence
Cross-Examination (WA) In contested criminal matters, a large portion of the evidence often consists of examination-in-chief and cross-examination. Cross-examination occurs when one party challenges and tests the evidence of a witness called by the other party. This may involve exposing weaknesses in their evidence and eliciting facts from the witness ....
Posted in:
Evidence
Contested Hearings (Qld) When a person in Queensland is charged with a criminal offence, they may plead guilty and proceed to be sentenced, or they may contest the charge. When a person contests a charge in the Magistrates Court or Children’s Court, the matter will be adjourned to another date ....
Posted in:
Evidence
Relevance and Admissibility (Vic)
The evidence used to prove a case can take many forms, including witness testimony, objects, audio or visual recordings, documents, and facts that are agreed upon between the parties. The Evidence Act 2008 establishes a complex set of rules that apply to different types of evidence and the ways they ....
Posted in:
Evidence
Examination-In-Chief (WA) Examination-in-chief is the oral evidence that a witness gives in response to questions asked by the party that called them. After examination-in-chief is finished, the witness is usually cross-examined by the other party. This page deals with examination-in-chief in Western Australia. Legislation The rules of evidence in WA ....
Posted in:
Evidence
Forensic Evidence (ACT) In the ACT police have the power to collect forensic evidence in the course of a criminal investigation. These powers are set out in the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000. There are strict rules about when forensic material can be obtained and the procedures that must be ....
Posted in:
Evidence
Police Procedures
A person who is charged with criminal offences may contest the charge and rely on a legal defence such as self-defence or duress. An accused person may also rely on a factual defence such as an alibi. An alibi exists where a person was not at the scene of the ....
Posted in:
Defences
Evidence
One of the most important rules of evidence when it comes to cross-examination is known as the Browne v Dunn rule. This rule was established in the 1893 English Court of Appeal decision of Browne v Dunn. The rule applies both in criminal and civil proceedings. Essentially the Browne v ....
Posted in:
Evidence
In Tasmania, people have a common law and legislative right to remain silent when they are suspected of a crime. This means that, except in limited circumstances, a suspect can decline to answer questions when interviewed by police. It also means that a defendant can choose not to self-incriminate during ....
Posted in:
Evidence
Police Procedures
Voir Dires in South Australia A voir dire is a pre-trial proceeding that is held to determine whether a particular piece of evidence will be admitted at trial. It is held prior to the jury trial (in a Supreme Court or District Court matter) or prior to the contested hearing (in a Magistrates Court or Children’s ....
Posted in:
Court Processes
Evidence