Blacker v The King

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had affirmed the conviction of Robert Stephen Blacker for wounding with intent to murder. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of enlarged photographs of thumb prints used as evidence during the trial.

The legal issues before the court were whether the enlarged photographs of a thumb print found on a box and of the prisoner's thumb print were admissible as evidence. Specifically, the objection was raised that these enlarged photographs did not depict the entirety of the original thumb prints, and that this omission rendered them inadmissible.

The court, in refusing special leave to appeal, reasoned that the enlarged photographs were admissible. The evidence presented indicated that the portions of the thumb prints included in the enlargements contained all the characteristics necessary for identification. The officer from the finger print department testified that the bulb of the thumb is the relevant area for comparison, and that the enlarged photographs accurately represented this crucial section. Any omitted parts were described as blurred or irrelevant for identification purposes. The court implicitly applied the principle that evidence is admissible if it is relevant and reliable, and that the focus for admissibility should be on whether the presented evidence allows for proper identification, rather than requiring a complete reproduction of every detail, especially if those details are not pertinent to the identification. The argument that the omissions affected the weight of the evidence, rather than its admissibility, was also a key consideration.