Heteraka v R

Heteraka v R was a case heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Heteraka, was charged with a criminal offence. A key piece of evidence in the case was a visual identification by a witness who identified Heteraka as the person who committed the offence. The admissibility of this evidence was contested, with Heteraka arguing that the identification was unreliable as the formal procedure outlined in section 45 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) was not followed. The prosecution argued that either a formal procedure was not necessary or that the circumstances surrounding the identification rendered it reliable despite procedural shortcomings.

The court had to decide whether the visual identification evidence was admissible under section 45 of the Act. The court needed to determine if the officers of the enforcement agency followed a formal procedure or if there was a good reason for not following one. If no formal procedure was followed and there was no good reason for this, the court had to assess whether the prosecution could prove that the identification was reliable beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that no formal procedure was followed by the enforcement agency in obtaining the visual identification evidence. However, the court determined that there was a good reason for not following a formal procedure because the witness had made an identification shortly after the offence was reported and in the course of the officer’s initial investigation. The court concluded that this was one of the circumstances listed in the Act as a good reason for not following a formal procedure. Consequently, the visual identification evidence was admissible as it met the criteria for admissibility under section 45(1) of the Act.

The court ordered that the visual identification evidence be admitted as part of the prosecution’s case. The trial proceeded with this evidence considered valid and admissible.