Sclaptsi v The Queen

The applicant, Sclaptsi, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute concerned the admissibility of photographic identification evidence used to identify Sclaptsi as the perpetrator of four counts of rape. The case was fought primarily on the issue of identification, with the defence arguing that the victim's identification of Sclaptsi through photographs should have been excluded.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the principles established in *Bunning v Cross* regarding the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence apply to the exercise of discretion under *Alexander v The Queen* to exclude photographic identification of a suspect when no identification parade has been held. The applicant contended that the trial judge had incorrectly applied *Bunning v Cross* principles when considering the *Alexander* discretion, particularly after finding that the applicant was a suspect at the time of the photographic identification and that an identification parade should have been conducted.

The applicant argued that the photographic identification was conducted approximately six months after the alleged rapes, and that the victim had previously failed to identify him from a set of slides shown shortly after the event. The defence submitted that the trial judge erred in his consideration of the exclusionary discretion, and that the application for special leave was warranted due to the fundamental importance of this point of law in the administration of justice.