R v Wayne Rodney SCHNEIDER (No 1) [2010] NSWDC 6

R v Wayne Rodney SCHNEIDER (No 1) [2010] NSWDC 6

The identification evidence was admissible because the accused's photograph did not stand out from the array in a way creating unfair prejudice, and although the possible displacement effect and the absence of a photograph of "white shoes" increased the risk of unfair prejudice, that risk did not outweigh the probative value of Ms Egan's identification, particularly given that appropriate jury directions could address the dangers of identification evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Admissibility Ruling Before Jury Empanelment on Identification Evidence
Outcome
The evidence to be admitted.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'photo Identification' 'risk of Unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'displacement Effect' 'evidence Act S 137']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'photo Identification' 'risk of Unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'displacement Effect' 'evidence Act S 137']

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 Prosecution / Admissibility Ruling Before Jury Empanelment on Identification Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Ms Egan's evidence identifying the accused as the shooter should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act because its probative value is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice." "Whether the photographic array caused the accused's photograph to stand out in a way creating a risk of unfair prejudice." 'Whether the possibility of displacement effect, including the similarity between the accused and "white shoes" and the absence of "white shoes" from the array, required exclusion of the identification evidence.' 'Whether potential tactical consequences for the accused concerning the absence of "white shoes" should affect the s 137 assessment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The identification evidence was admissible because the accused's photograph did not stand out from the array in a way creating unfair prejudice, and although the possible displacement effect and the absence of a photograph of "white shoes" increased the risk of unfair prejudice, that risk did not outweigh the probative value of Ms Egan's identification, particularly given that appropriate jury directions could address the dangers of identification evidence.

Court Disposition

The evidence to be admitted.

Orders

  • ['The evidence will be admitted.']