R v Doidge [2018] NSWDC 330

R v Doidge [2018] NSWDC 330

The photographic identification evidence was excluded because the accused was the only person in the twenty-photo line-up with an apparent rat's tail, and the complainant had consistently described the rat's tail as an identifying feature. Although the evidence had some probative value, that value was undermined in part by the complainant's mistaken recollection of the side of the tattoo, and the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value under s137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Ruling on Admissibility of Photographic Identification Evidence
Outcome
Photographic identification evidence excluded
Legal Topics
['photographic Identification Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['photographic Identification Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137']

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 / Voir Dire Ruling on Admissibility of Photographic Identification Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether photographic identification evidence of the accused should be admitted where the accused's photograph was the only photograph in the line-up showing an apparent rat's tail." 'Whether the probative value of the photographic identification evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The photographic identification evidence was excluded because the accused was the only person in the twenty-photo line-up with an apparent rat's tail, and the complainant had consistently described the rat's tail as an identifying feature. Although the evidence had some probative value, that value was undermined in part by the complainant's mistaken recollection of the side of the tattoo, and the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value under s137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Photographic identification evidence excluded

Orders

  • ['The identification evidence is not admitted.']