Reg v Meadway

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by the Crown. The applicant, Jason Allan Cameron Meadway, sought to challenge a decision of a lower court. The respondent was represented by Legal Aid Queensland, while the applicant was represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland).

The central legal issue before the High Court was the admissibility and reliability of identification evidence obtained against the respondent. Specifically, the court was required to consider the process by which the complainant identified the respondent as her attacker, including the use of an identikit, a photographic identification, and a "stake out" method involving repeated viewings of potential suspects, culminating in an identification at a Magistrates Court. The court also had to consider the respondent's refusal to participate in an identification parade.

The applicant argued that the jury at trial was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the correctness of the identification. The identification process involved the complainant first creating an identikit of her attacker, which depicted someone with long, straggly, light or blondish hair. Subsequently, she viewed approximately 709 photographs and selected one of a male with short, dark hair, identifying him based on facial characteristics but noting the hair difference. The respondent, who had shoulder-length blond hair at the time, refused to participate in an identification parade. The complainant was then taken to various locations over 12 days to see if she could identify her attacker, and spent two days at the Redcliffe Magistrates Court without making an identification. On the third day, the respondent entered the court, and the complainant identified him after observing him and hearing him speak.