References: (1992) 173 CLR 555
Coram: Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ
(Australia) Mason CJ said: ‘A trial judge is not absolved from his or her duty to give general and specific warnings concerning the danger of convicting on identification evidence because there is other evidence, which, if accepted, is sufficient to convict the accused. See R v Bartels (1986) 44 SASR [260] at pp 270-271; cf R v Goode [1970] SASR 69, at p 77. The judge must direct the jury on the assumption that they may decide to convict solely on the basis of the identification evidence. If a trial judge has failed to give an adequate warning concerning identification, a new trial will ordinarily be ordered even when other evidence makes a very strong case against the accused. See R v Gaunt [1964] NSWR 864, at p 867. Of course, the other evidence in the case may be so compelling that a court of criminal appeal will conclude that the jury must have convicted on that evidence independently of the identification evidence. In such a case, the inadequacy of or lack of a warning concerning the identification evidence, although amounting to legal error, will not constitute a miscarriage of justice. But unless the Court of Criminal Appeal concludes that the jury must inevitably have convicted the accused independently of the identification evidence, the inadequacy of or lack of a warning concerning that evidence constitutes a miscarriage of justice even though the other evidence made a strong case against the accused.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Queen -v- Beckford and Another PC (Times 30-Jun-93, (1993) 97 Cr App R 409)
The court rehearsed the Australian cases on the dangers of relying upon identification evidence, the need for proper jury directions, and the dangers of a court of appeal maintaining a conviction where an inadequate direction had been given relying . . - Cited – Shand -v- The Queen PC (Times 29-Nov-95, [1996] 1 WLR 67, Bailii, [1995] UKPC 46)
(Jamaica) The case for the defence was that the identification witnesses were deliberately lying and it was not suggested that they were mistaken, so that the sole line of defence was fabrication. The identification evidence was exceptionally good . .