Regina v Amir Ibrahim El Mostafa & Saleh Khodr [2007] NSWDC 322

Regina v Amir Ibrahim El Mostafa & Saleh Khodr [2007] NSWDC 322

The photographic identification evidence had relatively high probative value because of confusion about the accused's names and the witnesses' recognition by a different name. The photographic array was not unfair, the accused's photograph did not particularly stand out, and the absence of traditional clothing limited recognition to facial features. The evidence had no unfair prejudice, and any asserted prejudice did not substantially outweigh its probative value; the application was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Application to Exclude Photographic Identification Evidence Under Ss135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Photographic Identification Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'photographic Array']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Photographic Identification Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'photographic Array']

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 / Application to Exclude Photographic Identification Evidence Under Ss135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether photographic identification evidence of Mr El Mostafa should be refused admission under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether photographic identification evidence of Mr El Mostafa should be refused admission under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the photographic array was unfair or likely to cause the jury to overestimate the value of the identification evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The photographic identification evidence had relatively high probative value because of confusion about the accused's names and the witnesses' recognition by a different name. The photographic array was not unfair, the accused's photograph did not particularly stand out, and the absence of traditional clothing limited recognition to facial features. The evidence had no unfair prejudice, and any asserted prejudice did not substantially outweigh its probative value; the application was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to refuse admission of the photographic identification evidence is refused.']