Hien Puoc Tang Case Analysis
Added on 2021-06-17
17 Pages4113 Words96 Views
|
|
|
HIEN PUOC TANG CASE ANALYSISNameInstitutionCourseDate of submission
Summary of the case detailsThe case of Hien Puoc involved an armed robbery incidence dated on 14th March 20031. Therobbery took place in a convenience store, and the incidence that took place was captured by aninstalled surveillance device that videotaped all that occurred. Tang was convicted of the crimesince there was lack of enough evidence to confirm that he did commit the said crime. Thoughthere was the tape recovered from the surveillance device, it did not offer sufficient informationto be able to identify the offenders. In the video, three people were captured, but the quality ofthe tape was of poor quality that they could not be identified. However, eight months after, thepolice turned their attention specifically to Tang as forensic analysis of the stolen goodsindicated his fingerprints on them2. Also, Dr. Meiya Sutisno played a prominent role in theidentification of Tang’s image from the surveillance video through facial and body mappingtechniques. The case took another direction of the opinion evidence where it received a certaindegree of significance after Dr. Sutisno pointed out specific focal points of Tang’s resemblancebetween his photographs and the images of the third person in the surveillance video. Dr. Sutisnocame to her conclusion as she showed a similar depiction of the images on the tape and Tang’sphotograph3. It, therefore, meant that those two similar photograph bodies were of the sameperson. Also, through the usage of a six-point scale technique, there was a high degree of supportregarding the same matter.1Edmond, Gary. 2008. "Specialized knowledge, the exclusionary discretions and reliability:Reassessing incriminating expert opinion evidence." UNSWLJ 31:1.2Alexa, Battaglia. 2017. " Analysis Hien Puoc Tang and the impact of expert opinion."3Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681, [120].
The High Court in Smith decided that the police were not to be involved in the identificationprocess. As a result, the police were left out, and many felt this caused case analysis to beskewed. For instance, the psychologists believed that it’s only the police that was the mostreliable group in carrying out the identification process and thereby give out a reliableidentification evidence. Every case in a court requires the judges or jury involved to beconvinced behold reasonable doubt4 that the matter being presented occurred. For the Tang’s case, this was not so as the footage lacked clarity. Therefore, this called for theexpert opinion such as opinions of Dr. Sutisno who described the man in the photos to be Tang.Regardless, this was also not convincing enough as Dr. Sutisno did not see Tang in person and,therefore, regarded as a stranger as no deal could be traced between the two. Although she wasan expert in measuring and determining human remains and human beings and also help a Ph.D.in anatomy, the court still discredited the evidence. The central question was whether facialmapping technique could be accepted as a reliable method of presenting opinion-based evidence5especially under Section 79.Forensic evidence presented The forensic evidence presented was based on the fingerprints obtained from the three packs ofcigarette that were recovered after they were stolen. The fingerprint matched those of Tang.4Fowle, Ken. 2010. "The science, the technology, the law."5Regina v Stockwell CA (Ind Summary 05-Apr-93, [1993] 97 Cr App R 260) Expert evidence of facial comparison was admissible if the information and assessment are nototherwise available to the jury.
After the presentation to the court, they were not convincing enough as the question offingerprint residue6 arose as well as the number of people who could have handled thosecigarette packs still was in doubts. Usually, people’s fingerprint differs from one another.Therefore, it is possible to differentiate between the suspects and get the culprit through astatistical model that has been established for fingerprint analysis. Through forensic fingerprintanalysis, it is possible to determine the offender by taking their DNA that was left on the stolengoods such as those packets of cigarettes. Other forensic methods employed by Dr. Sutisno were facial mapping technique, body mappingtechnique, photo-anthropometry, photograph superimposition, and morphological analysis7.These techniques were based on the footage obtained from the surveillance cameras. The field offorensic science has received much attention recently due to the development of surveillancedevices that offers continuous monitoring of a place. Therefore, the recorded footage can beanalyzed by a forensic practitioner who will help identify the offender. However, the value of theinformation recorded determines the strength of the evidence and hence its acceptability. In thiscase, the footage was not clear and, therefore, the reason why the jury rejected the results. Facialmapping uses a morphological and anthropometric examination of the face of the person ofinterest. It involves both qualitative and quantitative comparisons of the surveillance images6Regina v Hien Puoc Tang(Austlii, [2006] NSWCCA 167)Austlii (Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Criminal Appeal) CRIMINAL LAW –Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude Evidence – whether opinion evidence ofidentity based on facial mapping.7Ibid [146].
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents