Regina v L Cassar; Regina v E Sleiman; Regina v H Kalache (Judgment No 11) [1999] NSWSC 321

Regina v L Cassar; Regina v E Sleiman; Regina v H Kalache (Judgment No 11) [1999] NSWSC 321

Applying the Smith and Brotherton line of authority, the test for admissibility of voice identification evidence is whether there is sufficient familiarity with the accused's voice to enable recognition, even without distinctive characteristics, and in this case, that threshold is satisfied. Expert evidence is not a prerequisite for admissibility of such evidence.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Leanne Cassar; Accused: Emad Sleiman; Accused: Hassan Kalache
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Ruling: Evidence of recorded conversations and voice identification is admissible, subject to further arguments on exclusion may remain to be argued.
Legal Topics
Evidence, Identification, Voice Identification, Admissibility
Criminal Law Evidence Identification Voice Identification Admissibility

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Leanne Cassar

Accused

Emad Sleiman

Accused

Hassan Kalache

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of voice identification evidence from recorded conversations against the accuseds Sleiman and Cassar
  2. 2 Whether the test of familiarity or distinctiveness applies for admission of non-expert voice identification evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the Smith and Brotherton line of authority, the test for admissibility of voice identification evidence is whether there is sufficient familiarity with the accused's voice to enable recognition, even without distinctive characteristics, and in this case, that threshold is satisfied. Expert evidence is not a prerequisite for admissibility of such evidence.

Court Disposition

Ruling: Evidence of recorded conversations and voice identification is admissible, subject to further arguments on exclusion may remain to be argued.

Orders

  • Evidence of recorded conversations and identification of voices of Mr Sleiman and Ms Cassar is allowed, subject to further arguments not yet addressed.