A jury comparison of the accused's appearance with security camera stills is not akin to a dock identification and does not attract the same dangers, because the jury is comparing evidence rather than making identification from memory. Section 165(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) applies to such comparison exercises, but the form of warning required is less prescriptive than for eyewitness identification cases. Cross-examination of an accused about the failure to call alibi witnesses is inappropriate where no alibi notice has been given and no alibi evidence called, but may not cause a miscarriage of justice if the defence can place the absent witness's account before the jury in re-examination.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.