REGINA v SMITH [1999] NSWCCA 317

REGINA v SMITH [1999] NSWCCA 317

The police officers' evidence that the appellant was the person shown in the bank security photographs was direct recognition evidence, not evidence of opinion, and was therefore not excluded by s76 of the Evidence Act 1995. The trial judge did not err in concluding that its probative value outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice, and the appellant did not show that the convictions were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['robbery' 'identification Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'unreasonable Verdict']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['robbery' 'identification Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'unreasonable Verdict']

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 Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether police officers' evidence identifying the appellant from still pictures developed from bank security camera film should have been excluded as opinion evidence under s76 of the Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether the trial judge erred in declining to exclude the police identification evidence under ss135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the convictions were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The police officers' evidence that the appellant was the person shown in the bank security photographs was direct recognition evidence, not evidence of opinion, and was therefore not excluded by s76 of the Evidence Act 1995. The trial judge did not err in concluding that its probative value outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice, and the appellant did not show that the convictions were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']