Blair v The Queen

The appellant appealed against his conviction for being knowingly concerned in the supply of a commercial quantity of a dangerous drug. The appeal was centred on the requirement for a s 126 warning in relation to voice identification evidence. The Supreme Court of Victoria heard the appeal. The central legal issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge was required to provide a s 126 warning in relation to the voice identification evidence, and whether the failure to do so breached the appellant’s right to a fair trial. The court examined whether the Crown case depended “wholly or substantially” on the correctness of the voice identification evidence. The court found that the Crown case did not depend “wholly” on that evidence, and both counsel accepted that “substantially” should be given its standard dictionary meaning of “significant” or “important”. The court determined that the Crown case was not substantially dependent on the voice identification evidence, as the main focus had been on Officer Tupe’s visual identification evidence of the appellant as the seller. The court concluded that the judge’s failure to give a s 126 warning in relation to voice identification evidence did not breach the appellant’s right to a fair trial, and the appeal was dismissed.

The court held that the trial judge’s failure to provide a s 126 warning in relation to voice identification evidence did not amount to a miscarriage of justice, as the Crown case was not substantially dependent on that evidence. The court found that the judge had given a s 126 warning in relation to visual identification evidence, and that encompassed all relevant matters. The court held that the appellant’s right to a fair trial was not breached, and the appeal was dismissed.