Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Evidence (Identification) Amendment Bill EVIDENCE (IDENTIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 7 April 2011.) The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:26): I want to briefly put on the record Family First's position on this bill. It is a fairly interesting bill in the fact that people associate line-ups with a long historical tradition with respect to policing, and this bill will make substantial changes to that. In fact, it gives preference to cheaper photographic identification techniques when the use of identification is flagged as an issue in a criminal investigation. It is accepted by Family First that photographic identification procedures are less administratively burdensome for our police officers. They are cheaper and they have some advantages over traditional police identification parades or 'line-ups' as they are usually called. There is, nevertheless, real debate within the legal community regarding this proposal, which we acknowledge and we are aware of. I am also aware that the opposition has not put forward their position on this matter yet, and I think it goes without saying that we would not normally formulate a final position until we had heard their position formally. So, we look forward to doing so in the coming days. This amendment provides succinctly that, in a criminal trial, evidence of the identity of the defendant is not inadmissible merely because it was obtained by means other than an identification parade, if the judge is of the opinion that the evidence has sufficient probative value to justify its admission. For many years now, police have been asking witnesses to identify suspects from a book of photographs rather than have the suspects take part in a formal identification parade. Indeed, the traditional line-up has fallen so far out of fashion in some jurisdictions, as I understand it, that newer police stations, including the one at Christies Beach, do not even have a room with a one-way mirror in which an identification parade can be conducted, so it is becoming increasingly difficult for physical reasons as well. In fact, I have been told by one lawyer who has dealt with thousands of criminal matters that he has only seen one or two line-ups conducted in the last 10 years; so they are these days relatively rare already. It seems, therefore, from this amendment that legislation needs to catch up with what is already current practice in the police force, the current usual practice being the use of photographic identification. There are certainly arguments on both sides of the debate as to whether this is in the best interests of justice or not. The Law Society, on the one hand, has publicly opposed moves to limit in law the precedence of identification parades. On the other hand, there are arguments from psychologists and other professionals questioning the accuracy of identification evidence obtained from line-ups. Professor Neil Brewer, for example, who is Dean of the School of Psychology at Flinders University, is something of a leading authority on police line-ups. Coincidentally, I would recommend to members his upcoming free lecture on police line-ups entitled 'Mistaken identity: how to use police line-ups to nab the bad guy, not the good guy', which will be held next Tuesday at 5:30pm at the Flinders University city campus. Professor Brewer, in particular, has pointed out several deficiencies in the use of identification parades, and I understand his work was considered in some detail by the government before it proposed this initiative. One article I have from the Forensic Psychology Journal, from another author, makes the following point: History has shown that eyewitness identification is easily influenced and wrongful accusations and incarceration has resulted from these errors. Also worth pointing out was a fairly definitive study in 2001 carried out by California State University-Sacramento that found that witnesses who viewed conventional line-ups and photo displays in 347 California cases actually picked the wrong person about half the time. Mistaken identification was also used as grounds for acquittal in 60 of the first 82 exoneration cases taken on by the Innocence Project which, members may be aware, is the United States group that tries to undo wrongful convictions. Police were also told to strongly support this bill, and I have little doubt they prefer catching criminals rather than rounding up members of the public to assist in identification parades. It is estimated that identification parades can take up to 10 police officers to organise and 60 hours of police time in total in some cases; and, actually, in some cases after that work has been undertaken, the suspect does not attend the identification parade and the whole process has to be started again. This seems very inefficient. Clearly—and I think it is fair to say this would be true not only of Family First but also other parties and individuals in this chamber—we do not like to see police resources wasted. I think this bill, at least at surface level, will go some way towards addressing that. Family First will consider the debate regarding this particular bill. I indicate support for the second reading but we will reserve our judgment and final position until we consider debate during the committee stage. It is nevertheless fair to say that we put a lot of weight on any request that SAPOL makes of us and, on the face of it, this bill does appear to make sense. We do query whether the delay in matching what is already standard police practice with this later legislation has jeopardised any criminal trials to date. Nevertheless, as I have said, Family First supports the second reading of this bill. I repeat that we are mindful that the opposition has not yet spoken on this bill. Of course, it is convention that the minor parties and Independents normally speak after the opposition but they were not quite ready to speak so we have moved ahead in this regard. However, I would reassure the opposition that we certainly will consider their position prior to coming to a final decision on this matter. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.