R v Amir EL MOSTAFA; R v Saleh KHODR [2007] NSWDC 392

R v Amir EL MOSTAFA; R v Saleh KHODR [2007] NSWDC 392

The witnesses' proposed evidence was visual identification evidence because it identified Mr El Mostafa wholly or partly by what they saw. The Crown did not establish that it would not have been reasonable to hold an identification parade, since police had proceeded to use photographic identification. However, Mr El Mostafa's answers in the record of interview amounted to an unqualified refusal to take part in an identification parade, so the recognition evidence from witnesses at the scene was admissible under s 114(2)(c).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Jury Trial / Application to Call Evidence of Visual Identification
Outcome
The evidence is admissible.
Legal Topics
['visual Identification Evidence' 'identification Parade' 'admissibility' 'evidence Act 1995 S 114']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['visual Identification Evidence' 'identification Parade' 'admissibility' 'evidence Act 1995 S 114']

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 Jury Trial / Application to Call Evidence of Visual Identification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed evidence amounted to visual identification evidence.' 'Whether it was reasonable to have held an identification parade.' 'Whether Mr El Mostafa refused to take part in an identification parade.' 'Whether the visual identification evidence was admissible under s 114 of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The witnesses' proposed evidence was visual identification evidence because it identified Mr El Mostafa wholly or partly by what they saw. The Crown did not establish that it would not have been reasonable to hold an identification parade, since police had proceeded to use photographic identification. However, Mr El Mostafa's answers in the record of interview amounted to an unqualified refusal to take part in an identification parade, so the recognition evidence from witnesses at the scene was admissible under s 114(2)(c).

Court Disposition

The evidence is admissible.

Orders

  • ['The visual identification evidence in the form of recognition evidence from witnesses at the scene is admissible.']