NCJ Number
85194
Journal
Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 14 Issue: 4 Dated: (June 1982) Pages: 134-149
Date Published
1982
Length
16 pages
Annotation
Issues bearing upon the admissibility of identification evidence in Australian courts are discussed, with attention to relevant High Court decisions.
Abstract
The most recent decision of the High Court, Alexander's Case, is notable for the majority's finding that no special rule should apply to identification evidence, even though its dangers may call for the application on occasions of a discretion to exclude it. Many of the cautionary statements by the courts on police procedure regarding identifications are designed to encourage certain standards of propriety among police. While breaches of those standards may lead to exclusion of evidence in the court's discretion, they are not breaches of rules of law. In Alexander's Case, one of the Court's majority, while criticizing the police failure to arrange a lineup, found no ground for doubting the soundness of the judge's use of discretion in favoring the admitting of photographic evidence for identification. It was in the weighing of the factors relevant to the exercise of that discretion that the Court's majority and minority differed. Certain legislation also has rules for the conduct of lineups; breach of these rules will be a factor in the court's deciding whether or not to admit identification evidence. The controversial aspects of the law of identification evidence will probably focus on three issues: (1) whether there should be mandatory rules of law for lineups and photographic identification, with automatic exclusion of evidence obtained in breach of them; (2) whether any discretion to exclude identification evidence should be weighed more towards exclusion than it was in Alexander's Case; and (3) whether corroboration or similar warnings should be compulsory. Eighty-seven references are listed. (Author summary modified)