Handwriting comparison evidence is not restricted to expert witnesses; lay witnesses and jurors may make their own comparisons. However, before comparison evidence can be adduced by cross-examination using a comparator document, s 30 of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) requires the genuineness of the comparator to be proved to the satisfaction of the judge, which may require a voir dire. The majority held that wrongful restriction of cross-examination on handwriting comparison constitutes a miscarriage of justice where the evidence is necessarily incomplete as a result.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.