Regina v Amir Ibrahim El Mostafa [2007] NSWDC 326

Regina v Amir Ibrahim El Mostafa [2007] NSWDC 326

Section 115(5) of the Evidence Act 1995 did not render the picture identification evidence inadmissible because, when the pictures were examined, Mr El Mostafa was in the custody of Corrective Services authorities, not in the custody of a police officer of the police force investigating the offence. Custody by prison authorities could not fall within the wording of the subsection referring to a police officer, a police force, and the force investigating the commission of the offence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Ruling on Admissibility of Picture Identification Evidence
Outcome
Picture identification evidence is admissible under s 115 of the Evidence Act 1995.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'picture Identification Evidence' 'section 115 of the Evidence Act 1995']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'picture Identification Evidence' 'section 115 of the Evidence Act 1995']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding / Ruling on Admissibility of Picture Identification Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether picture identification evidence sought to be led by the Crown was inadmissible under s 115(5) of the Evidence Act 1995 because the accused was in custody when the pictures were examined.' 'Whether custody by Corrective Services authorities amounts to being in the custody of a police officer of the police force investigating the commission of the offence for the purposes of s 115(5) of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 115(5) of the Evidence Act 1995 did not render the picture identification evidence inadmissible because, when the pictures were examined, Mr El Mostafa was in the custody of Corrective Services authorities, not in the custody of a police officer of the police force investigating the offence. Custody by prison authorities could not fall within the wording of the subsection referring to a police officer, a police force, and the force investigating the commission of the offence.

Court Disposition

Picture identification evidence is admissible under s 115 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Orders

  • ['Section 115 of the Evidence Act does not render inadmissible the picture identification evidence sought to be led by the Crown.']