R v Taousanis [2001] NSWSC 74

R v Taousanis [2001] NSWSC 74

Mr Matri's alleged identification on 1 August 1991 occurred a little over three months after the boat sale in late April 1991, and his memory of the event could not be described as fresh within the meaning of s66 of the Evidence Act 1995. The evidence of the identification was therefore inadmissible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Ruling on Admissibility of Identification Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Evidence rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'identification Evidence Prior to Trial' 'hearsay' 'freshness of Memory' 'unfair Prejudice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'identification Evidence Prior to Trial' 'hearsay' 'freshness of Memory' 'unfair Prejudice']

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 / Ruling on Admissibility of Identification Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of a pre-trial photographic identification by Mr Matri was admissible under the Evidence Act 1995.' "Whether the identification occurred when the relevant event was fresh in the witness' memory for the purposes of s66 of the Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether the evidence should in any event be rejected under s137 of the Evidence Act 1995 as unfairly prejudicial to the accused.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Matri's alleged identification on 1 August 1991 occurred a little over three months after the boat sale in late April 1991, and his memory of the event could not be described as fresh within the meaning of s66 of the Evidence Act 1995. The evidence of the identification was therefore inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Evidence rejected.

Orders

  • ["The proposed evidence of Mr Matri's pre-trial photographic identification was rejected."]