R v Preston

The appellant, Preston, was convicted by a jury of aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, having been jointly charged with a co-accused. He appealed his conviction to the Court, arguing that the trial judge had erred in several respects concerning the admission and direction of identification evidence.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the "photo board" identification evidence, whether the "in-dock" identification was improperly admitted, and whether the judge's directions to the jury regarding the identification evidence were adequate. Specifically, the Court considered whether the probative value of the "photo board" evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, and whether the "in-dock" identification was valueless and should have been excluded. The Court also examined whether the judge's directions adequately warned the jury about the dangers of relying on identification evidence, particularly in a circumstantial case.

The Court held that while the "photo board" evidence had weak probative value and did not constitute a positive identification, its admission was not a miscarriage of justice as it was relevant circumstantial evidence. However, the "in-dock" identification was deemed valueless as there had been no prior positive identification, and it should have been excluded. The trial judge's subsequent direction to the jury attempting to cure this error was also found to be insufficient, as the jury should have been directed to ignore the "in-dock" identification. Furthermore, the general directions on identification evidence were inadequate, lacking specific reference to the evidence presented.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and remitted the matter for a retrial. The Court found that a miscarriage of justice had clearly occurred due to the errors in admitting and directing the jury on the identification evidence.