R v Afu, R v Caleo (No 11) [2018] NSWSC 190

R v Afu, R v Caleo (No 11) [2018] NSWSC 190

The photographic identification was not improperly obtained, as police procedural guidelines were advisory and not mandatory; nevertheless, the evidence was excluded as its probative value was extremely low and was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice due to inconsistent witness descriptions, cross-racial identification, and lack of video recording of the act of recognition.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Alani Afu
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Evidence excluded
Legal Topics
Photographic Identification, Exclusion of Evidence, Probative Value, Prejudicial Effect, Procedural Compliance

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Alani Afu

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling

  1. 1 Whether photographic identification evidence was improperly obtained under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the probative value of the identification evidence was outweighed by unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The photographic identification was not improperly obtained, as police procedural guidelines were advisory and not mandatory; nevertheless, the evidence was excluded as its probative value was extremely low and was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice due to inconsistent witness descriptions, cross-racial identification, and lack of video recording of the act of recognition.

Court Disposition

Evidence excluded

Orders

  • Evidence of photographic identification of Mr Afu by Anthony Stambolis excluded pursuant to s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)