R v Ross (No. 3)

The matter of R v Ross (No. 3) involved the accused, Mr Ross, who faced charges arising from an alleged assault incident. The dispute centred on the admissibility of a photoboard identification made by the victim two years after the alleged assault. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the evidence should be considered 'recognition evidence', which could potentially be excluded at the court's discretion. The court was required to consider whether it was reasonable to conduct an identification parade given the delay and whether the victim's identification was influenced by a subsequent encounter with the accused.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the criteria for determining whether an identification process constitutes recognition evidence, the admissibility of such evidence, and the discretion of the court to exclude recognition evidence if deemed unfair. The court had to weigh the importance of a timely identification procedure against the practicalities and potential unreliability of such a procedure when conducted several years after the alleged incident. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the victim's identification of the accused was tainted by a later encounter, potentially leading to an unfair trial.

The court found that the photoboard identification process conducted two years after the alleged incident did not constitute recognition evidence. It concluded that the delay in conducting the identification did not render it unreasonable, and the victim's identification was not influenced by the subsequent encounter with the accused. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to admit the evidence, deeming it fair and reliable. Consequently, the court upheld the admissibility of the photoboard identification, allowing it to be presented as part of the evidence in the trial.

The final orders of the court were that the photoboard identification evidence was admissible, and the trial proceeded with this evidence considered by the jury. The court's decision underscored the importance of assessing the fairness and reliability of identification evidence, particularly in cases involving significant delays, while also recognising the court's discretion to exclude recognition evidence if necessary.