R v Chandler [2014] NSWDC 206

R v Chandler [2014] NSWDC 206

The Court held that the photographic identification evidence, though not technically identification evidence under s 115 of the Evidence Act, was so flawed in its procedure—by way of extensive delay, insufficient safeguards, police involvement in witness decision-making, inadequate witness instructions, an unduly small and improperly composed photo array, and repeated viewings—that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the accused. The evidence was thus inadmissible under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Parties
Prosecution: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Benjamin Chandler; Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: John R De Mattia & Co
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Objection to evidence upheld; evidence not permitted.
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Photographic Identification, Admissibility of Evidence, Unfair Prejudice, Circumstantial Evidence
Criminal Law Identification Evidence Photographic Identification Admissibility of Evidence Unfair Prejudice Circumstantial Evidence

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecution

Benjamin Chandler

Accused

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

John R De Mattia & Co

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of a photographic identification process is admissible when the procedures adopted are flawed and risk of unfair prejudice outweighs probative value.
  2. 2 Whether police failure to comply with best practice and standard procedures for identification evidence renders evidence inadmissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the photographic identification evidence, though not technically identification evidence under s 115 of the Evidence Act, was so flawed in its procedure—by way of extensive delay, insufficient safeguards, police involvement in witness decision-making, inadequate witness instructions, an unduly small and improperly composed photo array, and repeated viewings—that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the accused. The evidence was thus inadmissible under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Objection to evidence upheld; evidence not permitted.

Orders

  • The evidence of the identification witness, the recording of the identification parade by photographs on a computer and the conclusion reached by the witness as expressed in his statement are not permitted into evidence.