In Western Australia, prior familiarity with a voice or distinctiveness of the voice are not conditions precedent to the admissibility of voice identification evidence but are matters going to weight, following the Victorian rather than NSW approach. Where identification is the ultimate issue, a trial judge must not direct the jury to avoid making their own comparison of audio and visual materials or to prefer police identification evidence over their own assessment. A direction to the jury to avoid 'playing detectives' on the issue of identification constitutes a misdirection.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.