The Queen v DickmanCitation:[2017] HCA 24Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle, Edelman JJDate:21 Jun 2017Case Number:M162/2016Read more
The probative value of the identification evidence was not outweighed by unfair prejudice, and its admission did not occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice.
- Parties
- Victim: Unknown (Victim); Accused: Unknown (Accused)
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 June 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Identification Evidence, Probative Value, Unfair Prejudice, Miscarriage of Justice, Evidence Exclusion
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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Parties
Unknown (Victim)
Victim
Unknown (Accused)
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the probative value of the identification evidence outweighed its unfair prejudice to the accused
- 2 Whether the identification evidence should have been excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)
- 3 Whether admission of the identification evidence occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice
Ratio Decidendi
The probative value of the identification evidence was not outweighed by unfair prejudice, and its admission did not occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Conviction upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment