Smith v The Queen

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, brought by the applicant, Smith, against the Queen. The dispute centres on the admissibility of expert evidence concerning the fallibility of eyewitness identification. The transcript indicates that the application was being heard by Deane J.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether expert psychological evidence regarding the unreliability of identification procedures should be admitted in criminal proceedings. This involved considering the extent to which such evidence, particularly from a specialist in the field of psychology and identification, could be presented to a jury. The court also had to determine the appropriate procedural mechanism for resolving such admissibility questions, with a suggestion for a voir dire to be held prior to the calling of identification witnesses.

The court was presented with arguments that advances in psychological science, specifically concerning the fallibility of human recognition and identification, warranted greater consideration by the courts. Counsel for the applicant sought to adduce evidence from Dr Don Thomson, a lecturer in psychology at Monash University, who had specialised in the dangers and problems inherent in identification. The Crown prosecutor expressed deep concern about the potential impact of such evidence on the defence and cross-examination of witnesses, advocating for a voir dire to address the admissibility of this expert testimony before the trial commenced. The court acknowledged the need to resolve preliminary questions regarding the nature of the evidence sought to be adduced and its legal basis.