R v Carlson; R v Carlson [2021] NSWDC 612

R v Carlson; R v Carlson [2021] NSWDC 612

The prosecution bore the burden of establishing that it was reasonable not to hold identification parades. Police had the accuseds' names, knew where they lived, and attended their premises shortly after the robbery, but did not ask either accused to participate in a line-up and took no steps to comply with the precondition to admission of visual identification evidence. The prosecution did not establish that it would not have been reasonable to hold identification parades, so the proposed visual identification evidence was inadmissible under s114 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding for Robbery in Company / Pre Trial Ruling on Exclusion of Visual Identification Evidence
Outcome
The objection was upheld and the prosecution visual identification evidence sought to be led at trial was ruled inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'visual Identification Evidence' 'identification Parade' 'exclusion of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['robbery in Company' 'visual Identification Evidence' 'identification Parade' 'exclusion of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value']

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 Proceeding for Robbery in Company / Pre Trial Ruling on Exclusion of Visual Identification Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prosecution visual identification evidence was inadmissible under s114 of the Evidence Act 1995 because no identification parade including the accused was held and it was not shown that it would not have been reasonable to hold one.' 'Whether the proposed visual identification evidence should be excluded under s137 of the Evidence Act 1995 because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.']

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution bore the burden of establishing that it was reasonable not to hold identification parades. Police had the accuseds' names, knew where they lived, and attended their premises shortly after the robbery, but did not ask either accused to participate in a line-up and took no steps to comply with the precondition to admission of visual identification evidence. The prosecution did not establish that it would not have been reasonable to hold identification parades, so the proposed visual identification evidence was inadmissible under s114 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

The objection was upheld and the prosecution visual identification evidence sought to be led at trial was ruled inadmissible.

Orders

  • ['The proposed visual identification evidence is inadmissible at the trials of both accused.' 'The prosecution visual identification evidence sought to be led at trial is inadmissible.']