//
[2025] NSWDC 432
General information, not legal advice.
District Court of NSW
2025-04-14
Neilson DCJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Alameddine (No 3) [2025] NSWDC 432
Hearing dates: 14 April 2025
Date of orders: 14 April 2025
Decision date: 14 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision: See para [5].
Catchwords: CRIME – Admissibility of evidence – Photograph of accused not wearing wig sought to be adduced by Crown to show that accused was wearing wig at relevant time for purposes of concealing her identity – Many purposes for wearing of a wig – Not relevant – Did not in fact conceal her identity to persons who might be thought to be those she might wish to deceive.
Legislation Cited: Nil.
Cases Cited: Nil.
Texts Cited: Nil.
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Crown – R (NSW)
Accused – Sonia Alameddine
Representation: Counsel:
Crown – Ms Buck, K. (Solicitor Advocate)
Accused – Ms Wong, C.
Solicitors:
Crown – Office of the Department of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Accused – Circle Bridge Legal
File Number(s): 2023/00216790
Publication restriction: Nil.
HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the Crown to adduce into evidence a photograph of the accused taken on the night of the alleged crime after she had been arrested, but before she had been taken to the Mascot Police Station from the block of flats at which the crime is alleged to have been committed. The Crown wishes to adduce the photograph because it shows the accused not wearing a wig and it is part of the Crown case that when the appellant, in answer to the demand by the police to come out of the flat in question, with her hands on head and then to kneel down, she was wearing a wig.
The wig has not been put into evidence. I am told that it was given an exhibit number, but it is not at the present time in Court nor is there a relevant photograph of it. The Crown submits that the photograph is relevant because it shows the accused not wearing a wig and it enables the Crown to put a submission to the jury that the appellant had for the purpose of committing the alleged offence donned a wig in order to disguise her appearance.
However, it is clear that whilst wearing the wig the wig did not disguise her appearance from the person who was within the flat at the time she was permitted to enter it, Mr Ben Igoe, nor did the appellant's appearance at the time she entered the flat wearing a wig prevent the owner of the flat, who had electronic access to the flat via an electronic device attached to the front door, called Ring doorbell camera, from identifying the accused to him, her being known to him, and his being able to identify her via the Ring application from the doorbell onto his mobile phone.
The wearing of a wig is not an attempt to disguise oneself. It can merely be a fashion statement in popular culture. Some of us wear wigs professionally, not to cause us to be unidentifiable, but rather to denote our office. Certain types of headwear are used to identify persons holding office, whether it be in church or State. In my view, the fact that the appellant was wearing a wig when she rang the doorbell and sought entry to the flat is irrelevant, because the wearing of a wig cannot be explained solely by the fact that it was a form of disguise, especially when, on the evidence before me, it did not disguise the accused's true identity.
For those reasons, I rule that MFI 13 is irrelevant and therefore will not go to the jury.
**********
R
Alameddine