› Duty of trier of fact to address dangers of photoboard identification
› Whether Magistrate erred in failing to warn himself of shortcomings
› Whether identification parade should have been conducted
Criminal Law
› Evidence
› Silence of accused
› Weissensteiner direction
› Whether appropriate to draw adverse inference from failure to give evidence
› Whether case was exceptional
› Whether ownership of vehicle called for explanation from accused
Criminal Law
› Appeal
› Appeal from Magistrate's Court
› Conviction set aside
› Retrial ordered
› Error of law in approach to identification evidence and adverse inference from silence
Quick Take
1Following RPS v The Queen, a Weissensteiner direction (adverse inference from accused's silence) is confined to exceptional cases; the fact that the accused is the registered owner of the offending vehicle does not, without more, call for an explanation from the accused as to who was driving.
2A Magistrate sitting alone as trier of fact is under the same obligation as a trial judge directing a jury to address in reasons the inherent shortcomings and dangers of photoboard identification evidence.
3Failure by a Magistrate to address the dangers of photoboard identification in reasons constitutes an error of law warranting the setting aside of a conviction.
Case Details
Citation[2001] WASCA 150
CourtWASCA
JurisdictionWestern Australia
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
