The Court of Criminal Appeal held that a complainant's disagreement with propositions put in cross-examination (e.g. 'He did' in response to 'I never touched you') does not constitute 'identification evidence' within the meaning of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Dictionary and is therefore not rendered inadmissible by s 114, as it is not an assertion that the defendant was present at the place of the offence but merely a response maintaining the Crown case. The Court also held that permitting the Crown to make a limited closing address against a self-represented accused may serve the accused's interests by enabling a more informed defence closing and avoiding the accused first encountering the Crown's case theory in the summing up. On the trial judge's duty to a self-represented accused, the Court confirmed that the duty extends to providing sufficient information about practice and procedure to enable effective exercise of rights, but does not require the judge to become de facto defence counsel or to exclude evidence that might be beneficial to the accused's case without the accused having raised an objection.
The full text is available to signed-in members.