Court Case Of Harold James Blackburn

In 1989, former NSW police superintendent Harold James Blackburn was arrested and charged with 25 crimes under the Crimes Act 1900 which took place over a matter of nearly 20 years (New South Wales 1990). The charges included the crime of rape at Georges Hall in 1969 and sexual assault at Sutherland in 1985, as the Crimes Act 1900 had been updated during the periods of time that the alleged crimes took place (New South Wales 1990). When the case was presented to court in 1989, the Director of Public Prosecutions offered no evidence and the magistrate discharged Mr Blackburn on all charges (New South Wales 1990). A royal commission was established in 1990 to investigate the events and determine how an investigation could have failed to the

He believed that because Blackburn bore a striking resemblance to a photograph of the offender, he must be the culprit (New South Wales 1990). Furthermore, victim identification of Mr Blackburn through ‘operation photo’ fuelled this opinion despite negative identification and other conflicting evidence. In Addition, direct involvement by senior police into the matter resulted in confusion and miscommunication between the lines of enquiry and command which led to a lack of questioning to check the worth or value of the evidence created through ‘operation photo’ (New South Wales 1990). This essay will argue that the miscarriage of justice for Mr Blackburn was founded on police incompetence and negligence regarding the evaluation of evidence and a failure to objectively and neutrally approach the case. It will do this through critique of the evidence, in particular the identification evidence, presented or ignored which could implicate Mr Blackburn under the law as it stood then and as it stands

The reliability and admissibility of evidence becomes a foundation to this truth as any evidence presented cannot contain elements which can provide doubt towards the validity of the prosecution. This can be shown through guideline 14 of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions agreement to provide advice for the NSW police towards the legal limitations or consequences of evidence obtained during the course of an investigation (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions n.d). Identification evidence in particular has a lower weight and strength for admission to a court due to the fallibility and circumstantial nature of witnesses. The admissibility of identification evidence was previously determined by judges based on its quality with case law such as R v. Christie providing principles for discretionary powers for admissibility and Alexander v. R providing methods satisfactory to the court for identification such as identification parades under common law. (R v. Christie 1914; Alexander v. R 1981). The Evidence Act 25/1995 codified and retained many of these discretions, blending together the common law and legislative principles. For example, section 114 of the Evidence Act 25/1995 states that visual identification evidence obtained by the prosecution is inadmissible unless an identification parade has been held