The use of photographic evidence: Taitoko v R

The principles governing the use of photographic evidence were summarised in Taitoko v R [2020] NSWCCA 43 at [80]-[81]:

True it is that care must be taken when photographs are deployed. I regard it as self-evident that photographs (and, especially, the reproductions of photographs in appeal books) can contain obvious distortions of distance, colour and shape. They can also contain non-obvious distortions of distance, colour and shape. I sought to explain this in Goode v Angland (2017) 96 NSWLR 503; [2017] NSWCA 311 at [213]-[224], including by giving an example central to that appeal: the parallax error in photography of horses travelling around an oval racetrack.

The care which must always be taken in the use of photographs is inherent in their nature, as has regularly been observed in judgments. I would not read those observations as establishing some rule of law or principle of evidence; cf Amante v R [2020] NSWCCA 34 at [4]-[8]. Read fairly and in context, the statements in decisions such as in Angel v Hawkesbury City Council [2008] NSWCA 130 at [69]-[72] and Blacktown City Council v Hocking [2008] NSWCA 144 at [167]-[172] relate to the particular use of the particular photographs in those cases (respectively, photographs which distorted distance, taken after the event, sought to be used to displace the testimonial evidence of witnesses, and photographs of the lip of a pit used to establish its condition seven or eight years earlier), rather than some general rule or principle. Each case will depend on the particular photograph and the particular purpose for which it is sought to be deployed.

Sydney Trains v Argo Syndicate AMA 1200 – NSW    Caselaw

caselaw.nsw.gov.au

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18f4ac6a061e3c47b6b1eeed

the Court should be mindful of the need for caution when seeking to interpret photographic or video evidence: see, eg Blacktown City Council v Hocking [2008] NSWCA 144 at [149], [166]-[173] (Tobias JA, Spigelman CJ, Beazley, Giles and Campbell JJA agreeing).

@ [10] Hadid v NSW [2024] NSWCA 73

Discover more from Robert Sheldon SC

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading