Parker v The King

This case concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Edward Parker was convicted in the Court of General Sessions for breaking into a shop and stealing its contents. The sole evidence linking Parker to the crime was a comparison of a fingerprint found on a bottle at the scene with a fingerprint taken from Parker while in gaol.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court, and subsequently the High Court, was whether fingerprint evidence alone, in the absence of any other corroborating evidence, could be sufficient to support a conviction for a criminal offence. The applicant argued that such evidence, while admissible, was too unreliable to warrant a conviction on its own and that juries should be cautioned against relying solely upon it.

The High Court, in refusing special leave to appeal, affirmed the principle that fingerprint evidence can, in itself, be sufficient to establish identity. Griffith C.J. reasoned that the individuality of fingerprints is now widely recognised, rendering them akin to an "unforgeable signature." In this instance, the fingerprint was found at the scene of the crime under circumstances suggesting it was impressed during the commission of the offence. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was indeed evidence to go to the jury, and it was not possible to state that there was no evidence to support the conviction.