In Victoria, voice identification evidence given by a police officer who has acquired familiarity with voices through repeated listening to telephone intercepts is more appropriately characterised as lay opinion under s 78 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) than as expert opinion under s 79. This diverges from the NSW approach in R v Leung. The factual foundation for such evidence does not require the tender of the comparison material (such as a record of interview) where the witness testifies to the facts of having listened to both sets of recordings. Whether the ad hoc expert concept applies to voice identification under s 79 remains an open question at the High Court level following Honeysett v The Queen.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.