Smith v The Queen

Facts

The accused was charged with robbery. The prosecution sought to adduce evidence from a police officer who identified the accused from CCTV footage, purportedly recognising him from prior dealings. The defence objected that such opinion evidence was inadmissible.

Issues

1. Whether a police officer's identification of the accused from CCTV footage, based on prior familiarity, constitutes admissible evidence under the uniform Evidence Act. 2. Whether such evidence is relevantly probative where the jury is equally capable of comparing the footage with the accused.

Holding

The High Court held that the police officer's identification evidence was inadmissible because it was not relevantly probative — the officer was in no better position than the jury to identify the accused from the footage.

Ratio decidendi

Opinion evidence identifying an accused from CCTV footage is inadmissible where the witness has no special familiarity with the accused that places them in a better position than the jury to make the identification; in such circumstances the evidence is not 'relevant' within the meaning of s 55 of the uniform Evidence Act.

Obiter dicta

The Court observed that the position might differ where a witness has a sufficiently intimate or prolonged prior acquaintance with the accused such that the witness is genuinely better placed than the jury to identify the person depicted in footage.

Significance

Smith v The Queen is the leading Australian authority on the admissibility of police identification evidence from CCTV footage, establishing that relevance under the uniform Evidence Act requires a witness to possess some advantage over the jury before their opinion on identification can be received.

Key authorities

• Evans v The Queen Evans v The Queen (2007) 235 CLR 521considered
• R v Butera R v Butera (1987) 164 CLR 180considered
• R v Haidley and Alford R v Haidley and Alford [1984] VR 229considered
• R v Browne R v Browne [1998] 2 SCR 37cited