Identification Flashcards
Section 113 of the Evidence Act states?
Section 113 states: This Part (Part 3.9) only applies to criminal proceedings (does not apply to civil/AVOs)
What does the case of Alexander v The Queen (1980-81) state in relation to identification evidence?
“Identification is notoriously uncertain. It depends upon so many variables. They include:
- the difficulty one has in recognising on a subsequent occasion a person observed, perhaps fleetingly, on a prior occasion;
- the extent of the opportunity of observation in a variety of the circumstances, the vagaries of human perception and recollection; and
- the tendency of the mind to respond to suggestions, notably the tendency to substitute a photographic image once seen for a hazy recollection of the person initially observed”.
What does Section 114(2) legislate in relation to Visual Identification?
(2) Visual identification evidence adduced by the prosecutor is not admissible unless:
(a) an identification parade that included the defendant was held before the identification was made, or
(b) it would not have been reasonable to have held such a parade, or
(c) the defendant refused to take part in such a parade,
and the identification was made without the person who made it having been intentionally influenced to identify the defendant.
What did the case of R v To find in relation to Identification Parades/Identification evidence.
Information to 2 witnesses there would be suspects in parade did not exclude evidence - evidence not to be excluded if witness informed that a suspect would be in an ID parade.
What did the case of R v Ford find in relation to “reasonableness”
This was the prison ID where there were 2 inmates in a prison - held it was not reasonable to hold an ID parade in the circumstances.
R v Taufua found what in relation to Identification Evidence?
“Description is not Identification Evidence unless it goes a step further and asserts resemblance between the person seen and the Defendant”. - this was the case of the train attendant - should have gone a step further and held an ID parade in the circumstances.
What did the case of R v Leroy find in relation to reasonableness?
(Assault at football carnival in Foster and all out of towners)
“It must be borne in mind that the touchstone in Section 114(2) is whether it would not have been reasonable, not whether it would have been possible to have held an ID parade”.
What did the case of R v Tahere find in relation to ID parade?
Dock ID of the Accused because Police could not find enough people of similar appearance 16 days after crime. Police may have been able to hold an ID parade closer to trial. - look at all the circumstances.
When do the rules of Identification Evidence apply?
Part 3.9 - Section 113 of the Evidence Act states that this Part (Part 3.9) applies only in criminal proceedings (not civil proceedings ie: not an AVO/Forensic Procedure hearing).
Famous case for Identification Evidence is Alexander v the Queen. What inherent principle did Alexander find?
“Identification is notoriously uncertain. It depends upon so many variables”.
How is identification defined?
The Dictionary of the Evidence Act defines ‘Identification Evidence’ as:
identification evidence means evidence that is:
(a) an assertion by a person to the effect that a defendant was, or resembles (visually, aurally or otherwise) a person who was, present at or near a place where:
(i) the offence for which the defendant is being prosecuted was committed, or (ii) an act connected to that offence was done, at or about the time at which the offence was committed or the act was done, being an assertion that is based wholly or partly on what the person making the assertion saw, heard or otherwise perceived at that place and time, or
(b) a report (whether oral or in writing) of such an assertion.
Starting point: is it Identification Evidence?
If it is not based on what a person perceived (ie: CCTV), then it is not identification evidence.
How is visual identification defined? Cite legislation.
Section 114 of the Evidence Act
114 Exclusion of visual identification evidence
(1) In this section:
visual identification evidence means identification evidence relating to an identification based wholly or partly on what a person saw but does not include picture identification evidence.
Is visual identification admissible? Cite Legislation
Section 114(2) of the Evidence Act states that unless the following 3 things (114 (2), (a)(b) and (c)) are adhered to, then visual identification is not admissible.
(2) Visual identification evidence adduced by the prosecutor is not admissible unless:
(a) an identification parade that included the defendant was held before the identification was made, or
(b) it would not have been reasonable to have held such a parade, or
(c) the defendant refused to take part in such a parade, and the identification was made without the person who made it having been intentionally influenced to identify the defendant.
and the identification was made without the person who made it having been intentionally influenced to identify the defendant.
What 4 things have to be done or adhered to (in accordance with Section 114(2)) to make visual identification admissible?
(a) an identification parade that included the defendant was held before the identification was made, or
(b) it would not have been reasonable to have held such a parade, or
(c) the defendant refused to take part in such a parade, and the identification was made without the person who made it having been intentionally influenced to identify the defendant.
and the identification was made without the person who made it having been intentionally influenced to identify the defendant.
