Admissibility of Photographic Evidence in Criminal Trials

In a criminal trial, the court ruled that certain photographs were inadmissible due to their prejudicial nature and lack of relevance to the charges. The decision emphasised the importance of excluding evidence that could unfairly prejudice the jury.

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : R v [NAME] [No 3] [2010] NSWSC 1530

HEARING DATE(S) : 09/08/2010 - 13/12/2010

JUDGMENT DATE : 23 August 2010

JUDGMENT OF : [NAME] : Procedural and other rulings

PARTIES : [NAME] (Crown) [NAME] (Accused)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2009/256171

COUNSEL : [redacted] [NAME] SC / [NAME] (Accused)

SOLICITORS : [redacted] [NAME], Archbold Legal Solutions (Accused)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW [NAME] 23 AUGUST 2010

2009/256171 [NAME] v [NAME] – Re admissibility of photographic evidence – see p 552 of transcript 1 HIS HONOUR: I do not think the second group of photographs should be allowed in. I do not see any harm in the first set of photographs, the ones closest to the birth. I will give some very brief reasons, but it should be noted that the question of the admission of these photographs is one that I make on the run, admittedly. I do so without a full appreciation of all the issues that might arise and, therefore, I do not put out of question depending on the way in which the evidence develops, that the issue may be revisited at a later stage. It may, for example, depend on questions to be asked by the defence. The photographs I reject are the ones taken at the [COMPANY] and the [COMPANY]. 2 My reasons are simply these: I agree to a extent with [NAME] SC, that the jury should not be put in a position where they have to decide, based on a selected group of photos assembled for the purposes of the prosecution case, whether the accused did or did not look pregnant onthose occasions, or whether she was or was not successful in her attempts to avoid demonstrating her pregnancy on those occasions. It is also irrelevant in my view whether some people may have thought incorrectly that she was not pregnant, and others may have correctly divined that she was pregnant. Photographs are no more than a snapshot of a particular person in a particular situation at a particular time. They cannot tell a continuous story. The one area where I feel quite strongly, however, is that I agree with [NAME] entirely that whether or not the accused acted irresponsibly during her pregnancy by consuming alcohol or by consuming too much alcohol or by becoming intoxicated, is, to my mind, entirely irrelevant to the murder charge. The topic is, in any event, so highly prejudicial that it clearly outweighs any supposed probative value in the proposition that she may have been, to some degree or other, irresponsible during her pregnancy. 3 I cannot accept that this is evidence that should be permitted in the case, and that is a further reason why I think the photographs showing her at the [COMPANY] and the [COMPANY] should not go into evidence. As the Crown has rightly pointed out, the idea of putting in a photograph that has a caption on it "[NAME] intoxicated at the [COMPANY]" is completely prejudicial and unfairly so in this trial. 4 The Crown, in fairness, of course, has not suggested that this particular aspect of the photos should be placed before the jury. I appreciate that qualification but, in any event, I think that the topic as I see it at the moment is too prejudicial to be allowed. The photographs make exactly the same point as the caption, perhaps even more prejudicially. As I have said, however, there is really no relevant value in the topic in relation to any of the charges against the accused and the photographs should be excluded on that basis, and the further basis that they will serve no useful purpose other than to inflame the jury unfairly against the accused. **********

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.