R v Sterling; R v McCook [2014] NSWDC 199

R v Sterling; R v McCook [2014] NSWDC 199

The corrections officers' identification of Mr McCook from the CCTV was not relevant because their limited and imprecisely established familiarity with him over three weeks did not place them in a better position than the jury. The officers' evidence concerning Mr Sterling was relevant because their repeated contact with him over more than four months gave them an advantage in viewing poor-quality footage, but the evidence was opinion evidence. Their familiarity with the accused through prison duties did not amount to specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience, and their assertions of identification were no more than subjective belief. Accordingly, the evidence was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution on Indictment; Interlocutory Application Concerning Admissibility of Identification Evidence / Voir Dire After Arraignment and Pleas of Not Guilty
Outcome
The corrections officers' CCTV identification evidence was held inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'identification Evidence' 'recognition Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'ad Hoc Expert Evidence' 'cctv Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'identification Evidence' 'recognition Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'ad Hoc Expert Evidence' 'cctv Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution on Indictment; Interlocutory Application Concerning Admissibility of Identification Evidence / Voir Dire After Arraignment and Pleas of Not Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence from corrections officers identifying the accused from prison CCTV footage was relevant under s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' "Whether the corrections officers' identification evidence was fact evidence or opinion evidence excluded by s 76 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether the evidence was admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) as opinion based on specialised knowledge or ad hoc expertise.' 'Whether, if otherwise admissible, the evidence of Mr Espie should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The corrections officers' identification of Mr McCook from the CCTV was not relevant because their limited and imprecisely established familiarity with him over three weeks did not place them in a better position than the jury. The officers' evidence concerning Mr Sterling was relevant because their repeated contact with him over more than four months gave them an advantage in viewing poor-quality footage, but the evidence was opinion evidence. Their familiarity with the accused through prison duties did not amount to specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience, and their assertions of identification were no more than subjective belief. Accordingly, the evidence was...

Court Disposition

The corrections officers' CCTV identification evidence was held inadmissible.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of corrective services officers identifying Mr McCook from CCTV footage is not relevant and is inadmissible pursuant to s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'In the alternative, the evidence concerning Mr McCook is opinion evidence excluded by s 76 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and does not fall...