Kontorinakis v The Queen

The appellant, Mr. Kontorinakis, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. He appealed his conviction to the High Court of Australia, arguing that the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence and in failing to direct the jury adequately on the issue of identification. The respondent was the Crown.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence of a police officer, who identified the appellant from a photograph shown to him by another officer, was admissible. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification, particularly in circumstances where the identification was based on a photograph, were sufficient to ensure a fair trial.

The Court held that the police officer's identification evidence was inadmissible because it was based on a photograph shown to him by another officer, which constituted hearsay. The Court reasoned that the officer's evidence was not based on his own direct observation but on information conveyed to him by another, thereby violating the rule against hearsay. Consequently, the Court found that the admission of this evidence had prejudiced the appellant's case. The Court also found that the trial judge's directions on identification were inadequate, failing to sufficiently caution the jury about the potential unreliability of photographic identification and the importance of corroborating evidence.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.