Bullman v Debnam [2010] ACTSC 97 (13 September 2010)


APPEAL – failure to challenge admissibility of evidence in Magistrates Court – wish to save time in Magistrates Court not an excuse sufficient to justify raising admissibility on appeal.

EVIDENCE – whether identification evidence was evidence of opinion or evidence of fact – identification of witness’s own remembered observation with later observation not opinion evidence.

EVIDENCE – whether failure to hold identification parades deprived defendant of chance of acquittal – considerations in whether to hold identification parade – nature and circumstances of witnesses’ observations – scope for accused person changing appearance in relevant respects – no obligation to hold identification parade if any result would be unreliable.

EVIDENCE – whether treatment of identification evidence resulted in unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict – whether evidence should have been excluded as unfairly prejudicial – whether Magistrate was sufficiently aware of potential unreliability of identification evidence – prosecution required to establish defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not required to disprove defendant’s evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 114,114(2)(b),114(3),137
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), Pt 3.3, s 76