This provision has not been checked by a human. The text below was read automatically from the official PDF and has not yet been verified against it, so it may differ from the provision as published — in its wording, its numbering, or where one provision ends and the next begins. For the authorised text, see legislation.vic.gov.au.
provides a general exclusionary rule for visual identification evidence. Visual identification evidence adduced by the prosecution is not admissible unless—
an identification parade that included the defendant was held before the identification was made; or
it was not reasonable to hold such a parade; or
the defendant refused to take part in such a parade—
and the identification was made without the person who made it having been intentionally influenced to identify the defendant. Subclause (3) sets out some of the matters that a court may take into account in determining whether it was reasonable to have held an identification parade. These include the kind and gravity of the offence, the importance of the evidence and the practicality of holding such a parade (including, if the defendant failed to cooperate, the manner and reason for the failure). Under subclauses (4) and (5), it is to be presumed that it would not have been reasonable to hold an identification parade if it would have been unfair to the defendant to hold the parade or the defendant refused to take part in the parade unless an Australian legal practitioner (a defined term) or other party was present and there were reasonable grounds to believe this was not reasonably practicable. Subclause (6) stipulates that in determining whether it was reasonable to hold a parade, the court is not to take into account availability of pictures or photographs that could be used in making identifications.