Traill v The Queen

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Traill, against his conviction for an offence. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the recognition evidence of two victims, Eldridge and Gures, who identified Traill and his son as the perpetrators. Traill and his son denied involvement, and Traill presented an alibi supported by his partner and another son. The victims had not seen Traill or his son for several years prior to the incident, leading the court to consider the principles applicable to identification evidence, even though it was a case of recognition.

The central legal issue before the appellate court was whether the trial judge had adequately warned the jury about the potential unreliability of the identification evidence, as required by the principles established in *Domican v The Queen*. Specifically, the appeal argued that the trial judge failed to identify for the jury the specific weaknesses in the recognition evidence and other significant matters that undermined its reliability, thereby rendering the directions insufficient.

The court found that the trial judge's directions regarding the recognition evidence provided by both witnesses were thorough and fair. The judge had properly considered the principles applicable to identification evidence in the context of recognition, and the directions given were deemed sufficient to satisfy the requirements of *Domican*. Consequently, the sole ground of appeal was not made out.

Permission to appeal was refused.