R v Marsh [2005] NSWCCA 331

R v Marsh [2005] NSWCCA 331

The identification evidence given by the appellant's sister, based on her long-term familiarity with him, was admissible either as direct evidence or under the exception for specialized knowledge based on experience in s 79. The CCTV photographs were of sufficient quality and probative value for the jury to assess, and the potential prejudicial effect was not such as to warrant exclusion under s 137. Appropriate jury directions were given. Therefore, there was no error in the trial judge's rulings, and the appeal should be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Identification Evidence' 'recognition Evidence' 'opinion Versus Fact in Identification' 'admissibility of Surveillance Photographs']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Identification Evidence' 'recognition Evidence' 'opinion Versus Fact in Identification' 'admissibility of Surveillance Photographs']

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 / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence of identification by the appellant's sister" 'Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the CCTV surveillance photographs into evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The identification evidence given by the appellant's sister, based on her long-term familiarity with him, was admissible either as direct evidence or under the exception for specialized knowledge based on experience in s 79. The CCTV photographs were of sufficient quality and probative value for the jury to assess, and the potential prejudicial effect was not such as to warrant exclusion under s 137. Appropriate jury directions were given. Therefore, there was no error in the trial judge's rulings, and the appeal should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • []