Voice identification evidence comparing recorded voices (such as telephone intercepts with a police interview) is admissible on three alternative bases: (1) under the general law principle that identification evidence falls outside the opinion rule, preserved by s 9(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); (2) under s 78 as lay opinion where the comparative exercise cannot be adequately described; and (3) under s 79 as ad hoc expert opinion where the witness has acquired specialised knowledge through extensive listening experience that the jury cannot replicate. The relevance constraint from Smith v The Queen requires that the witness must have done something different in degree from what the jury could do. The Nasrallah line of authority on ad hoc expertise is criticised as an unnecessary complication of straightforward principles.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.