Ali v R

HEADNOTE [This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment] Following a trial in the District Court, the applicant was found guilty of 11 counts of dealing in identification information with the intention of facilitating the commission of an indictable offence, namely dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception, contrary to s 192J of the Crimes Act 1900. The Crown case against the applicant was entirely circumstantial and relied, in part, on intercepted telephone conversations. 24 of those conversations were in Hindi (the Hindi calls) and were between an identified person and another person simply described as a "male voice". It was the Crown case that the "male voice" was that of the applicant. The evidence relied upon in support of that conclusion included evidence of a qualified interpreter and translator who, having translated the Hindi calls into English, gave evidence (without objection) that the "male voice" in each of the calls was that of the same person. In reaching that conclusion, the witness relied upon her familiarity with the Hindi language and took into account the tone, pitch and speed of the words that were said. The trial Judge directed the jury in respect of the dangers of identification evidence, in the course of which he told the jury that (inter alia) the translator had no training at all in voice identification and was "thus no more or less qualified" than the jury to reach a conclusion as to whether the voice of the male person was the same in each conversation. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction and required an extension of time in which to do so. He relied on two grounds of appeal, namely that: