R v Amatto, Martin - [2011] NSWDC 194

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Amatto, Martin [2011] NSWDC 194
Decision date: 07 December 2011
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: NICHOLSON SC DCJ
Decision:
Application to reject expert fingerprint identification refused.

Catchwords: Criminal Law - Interlocutory application - Expert evidence - Fingerprint identification - argued jury capable of making its own comparisons - aspects of study and knowledge of fingerprint experts discussed - knowledge amounts to specialised knowledge - dangers of drawing comparisons in absence of specialised knowledge
Cases Cited: Mundarra Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Regina
Martin James Amatto
Representation: Defence: G Corr
Crown: Mr C Bailey

File Number(s): 2010/103699

Judgment

Application to reject expert fingerprint identification

1. Martin James Amatto is on trial in relation to an alleged robbery of a person at the Flying Horse Truck Stop on 10 October 2009. The crown case is the robber is Mr Amatto. My understanding is the Flying Horse Truck Stop is a service station and the alleged victim was an employee or otherwise associated with the owners of the service station. The money taken the crown alleges belonged to the owners of the service station.

2. In the course of investigation fingerprints were lifted from the crime scene. The lifted fingerprints were passed onto a Sergeant Brian Worboys, who is presented by the prosecution as an expert witness, his field of expertise being, so far as this trial is concerned, the science of fingerprints. The effect of his statement is, to identify a lifted fingerprint as being the fingerprint of the right middle finger of the accused.

3. Mr Corr, acting Public Defender, on behalf of the accused, argues what I might call the rule in Mundarra Smith (see Mundarra Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650) applies, namely that the Crown can tender the accused fingerprints and the image of the lifted fingerprint for the jury to make its own mind up on the question of fact whether the lifted fingerprint matches any of the accused fingerprints.

4. Put another way, he argues the opinion of Sergeant Worboys is not relevant on this occasion because the jury can make its own comparison of the lifted fingerprint with those of the accused.

5. With respect the argument does not appear to be well thought through. If prosecutors were not required to rely upon expert opinion evidence in respect of fingerprints, they could tender crime scene fingerprints and an accused person's fingerprints and invite a jury to come to its own view about the fingerprints even where the requisite number of identification points had not been reached. Indeed, the notion of a requisite number of identification points could now be abandoned.

6. Sergeant Worboys makes clear his comparison involved comparisons of pattern type, ridge flow, friction ridge characteristics, and their relative position to each other, and the number of intervening ridges between these characteristics. No doubt that is part of the science of fingerprints in operation in the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Amatto, Martin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NSWDC 194
Decision Date: 07 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an interlocutory application within a criminal trial. The accused, Martin Amatto, sought to exclude the fingerprint evidence presented by the prosecution on the grounds that it constituted specialised knowledge beyond the understanding of the jury. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the evidence should be excluded based on the jury's capacity to draw their own comparisons without expert assistance.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the fingerprint evidence could be considered as specialised knowledge that lay beyond the jury's capacity to understand and evaluate. The court was required to assess the nature of the knowledge held by fingerprint experts and whether it was essential for the jury to draw comparisons between the fingerprints found at the crime scene and those of the accused. Additionally, the court needed to determine the dangers associated with the jury drawing their own comparisons without the benefit of specialised knowledge.

The court held that fingerprint identification expertise did indeed constitute specialised knowledge, as it required a deep understanding of minutiae and the ability to discern subtle differences. The court recognised that while a jury may be capable of making basic comparisons, the complexities and nuances involved in fingerprint identification warranted the assistance of an expert. The court emphasised the potential dangers of the jury drawing their own comparisons without the benefit of specialised knowledge, which could lead to incorrect conclusions and potentially unjust outcomes. Consequently, the court refused the application to exclude the expert fingerprint evidence, finding that it was essential for the jury to receive expert assistance in evaluating the evidence properly. The court's decision underscored the importance of specialised knowledge in certain areas of evidence to ensure a fair and accurate trial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application to reject expert fingerprint identification refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Amatto, Martin [2011] NSWDC 194
Decision date:	07 December 2011
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	NICHOLSON SC DCJ
Decision:	Application to reject expert fingerprint identification refused.
Catchwords:	Criminal Law - Interlocutory application - Expert evidence - Fingerprint identification - argued jury capable of making its own comparisons - aspects of study and knowledge of fingerprint experts discussed - knowledge amounts to specialised knowledge - dangers of drawing comparisons in absence of specialised knowledge
Cases Cited:	Mundarra Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	Regina Martin James Amatto
Representation:	Defence: G Corr Crown: Mr C Bailey
File Number(s):	2010/103699