R v Sterling; R v McCook

In the case of R v Sterling; R v McCook, the defendants were convicted of various charges including assault occasioning bodily harm. The primary issue that arose was the admissibility of evidence obtained from CCTV footage of prison inmates, which was intended to be used as evidence of recognition. The defendants argued that the evidence of the correctional officers was akin to "ad hoc" expert evidence and thus should be inadmissible. The court was required to determine the appropriate legal standards governing the admissibility of such evidence and whether the evidence met those standards.

The court considered the legal principles established in previous cases such as R v Walker, where it was determined that evidence of recognition by a witness is not considered expert evidence and thus does not fall under the rules prohibiting "ad hoc" expert evidence. The court also examined the nature of the evidence presented, which involved correctional officers identifying the defendants in prison CCTV footage. The court needed to assess whether the officers' observations could be considered as lay witness evidence or whether they required special expertise. The court concluded that the correctional officers' observations did not necessitate special expertise and thus could be admitted as lay witness evidence.

The court held that the evidence of the correctional officers was not "ad hoc" expert evidence but rather lay witness evidence. This was based on the officers' familiarity with the defendants through their roles in the prison system, which provided them with a basis for recognising the defendants. Therefore, the evidence was deemed admissible as it did not involve opinions requiring specialised knowledge. The court also noted that the officers' observations were based on their direct experience and familiarity with the defendants, which aligns with the principles of lay witness evidence. The court's decision was that the evidence was properly admitted and did not infringe upon the rules prohibiting "ad hoc" expert evidence.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence of the correctional officers identifying the defendants in the prison CCTV footage was admissible. The convictions of the defendants were upheld as the evidence was deemed properly admitted and did not constitute inadmissible "ad hoc" expert evidence.