Visual identification evidence: Early identification key to avoiding the need for parades

The NSW Supreme Court has overturned the ruling of a Dubbo Magistrate who excluded visual identification evidence on the basis that no identification parade was held.

Section 114 of the Evidence Act 1995 states:

(2)  Visual identification evidence adduced by the prosecutor is not admissible unless:

(a)  an identification parade that included the defendant was held before the identification was made; or

(b)  it would not have been reasonable to have held such a parade; or

(c)  the defendant refused to take part in such a parade;

and the identification was made without the person who made it having been intentionally influenced to identify the defendant.

In Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Walford [2011] NSWSC 759, the complainant who was providing the identification evidence knew the defendant and identified him to the Police by name at the time of the complaint.

Davies J ruled that it was in fact, unreasonable to have held a parade because

....the Complainant had identified the Defendant and had done so at or about the time of the commission of the offence. Alternatively... he ought to have held that it was impossible to have held an identification parade before the identification with the result that it was reasonable not to have done so.

TimeBase Commonwealth Cases includes a comprehensive collection of over 25,000 full text Australian judgments. It is a fast and convenient service giving you access to current and past case law with the ease of powerful, expansive searching. Contact us for full pricing information or to trial the service free for a limited time.