A jury may be permitted to compare an accused's voice speaking English with voices on recordings in a foreign language to determine whether the accused is one of the speakers, without expert evidence, provided the trial judge is satisfied the quality and quantity of the material is sufficient to enable a useful comparison and appropriate warnings are given. No prescriptive rule requiring expert evidence for cross-language voice comparison exists in New South Wales. Following the repeal of s 16G of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), courts cannot apply the former discount either directly or by analogy with Radenkovic v R, even where the offence was committed before repeal.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 8 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.