Hien Puoc Tang Case: Analysis of Forensic Evidence and Court Decisions

This case study analyzes the Hien Puoc Tang case, which involved an armed robbery and the subsequent legal proceedings. The primary focus is on the forensic evidence presented, including fingerprint analysis and the controversial use of facial and body mapping techniques based on surveillance footage. The analysis delves into the admissibility of this evidence, the expert testimonies provided by Dr. Meiya Sutisno, and the challenges faced by the court in determining the reliability of these techniques. The case highlights the importance of scientific rigor in forensic evidence, the role of specialized knowledge, and the impact of legal precedents like Makita and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc. The study examines the issues that arose from the evidence, the criticisms leveled against the techniques, and the ultimate decisions made by the court, including the rejection of the facial mapping evidence. The case emphasizes the evolving nature of science and technology and its influence on legal proceedings.

HIEN PUOC TANG CASE ANALYSIS
Name
Institution
Course
Date of submission

Summary of the case details
The case of Hien Puoc involved an armed robbery incidence dated on 14th March 20031. The
robbery took place in a convenience store, and the incidence that took place was captured by an
installed surveillance device that videotaped all that occurred. Tang was convicted of the crime
since there was lack of enough evidence to confirm that he did commit the said crime. Though
there was the tape recovered from the surveillance device, it did not offer sufficient information
to be able to identify the offenders. In the video, three people were captured, but the quality of
the tape was of poor quality that they could not be identified. However, eight months after, the
police turned their attention specifically to Tang as forensic analysis of the stolen goods
indicated his fingerprints on them2. Also, Dr. Meiya Sutisno played a prominent role in the
identification of Tang’s image from the surveillance video through facial and body mapping
techniques. The case took another direction of the opinion evidence where it received a certain
degree of significance after Dr. Sutisno pointed out specific focal points of Tang’s resemblance
between his photographs and the images of the third person in the surveillance video. Dr. Sutisno
came to her conclusion as she showed a similar depiction of the images on the tape and Tang’s
photograph3. It, therefore, meant that those two similar photograph bodies were of the same
person. Also, through the usage of a six-point scale technique, there was a high degree of support
regarding the same matter.
1 Edmond, Gary. 2008. "Specialized knowledge, the exclusionary discretions and reliability:
Reassessing incriminating expert opinion evidence." UNSWLJ 31:1.
2 Alexa, Battaglia. 2017. " Analysis Hien Puoc Tang and the impact of expert opinion."
3 Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681, [120].

The High Court in Smith decided that the police were not to be involved in the identification
process. As a result, the police were left out, and many felt this caused case analysis to be
skewed. For instance, the psychologists believed that it’s only the police that was the most
reliable group in carrying out the identification process and thereby give out a reliable
identification evidence. Every case in a court requires the judges or jury involved to be
convinced 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 the
expert 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 was
an 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 facial
mapping technique could be accepted as a reliable method of presenting opinion-based evidence5
especially under Section 79.
Forensic evidence presented
The forensic evidence presented was based on the fingerprints obtained from the three packs of
cigarette that were recovered after they were stolen. The fingerprint matched those of Tang.
4 Fowle, Ken. 2010. "The science, the technology, the law."
5 Regina 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 not
otherwise available to the jury.

After the presentation to the court, they were not convincing enough as the question of
fingerprint residue6 arose as well as the number of people who could have handled those
cigarette 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 a
statistical model that has been established for fingerprint analysis. Through forensic fingerprint
analysis, it is possible to determine the offender by taking their DNA that was left on the stolen
goods such as those packets of cigarettes.
Other forensic methods employed by Dr. Sutisno were facial mapping technique, body mapping
technique, photo-anthropometry, photograph superimposition, and morphological analysis7.
These techniques were based on the footage obtained from the surveillance cameras. The field of
forensic science has received much attention recently due to the development of surveillance
devices that offers continuous monitoring of a place. Therefore, the recorded footage can be
analyzed by a forensic practitioner who will help identify the offender. However, the value of the
information recorded determines the strength of the evidence and hence its acceptability. In this
case, the footage was not clear and, therefore, the reason why the jury rejected the results. Facial
mapping uses a morphological and anthropometric examination of the face of the person of
interest. It involves both qualitative and quantitative comparisons of the surveillance images
6 Regina 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 of
identity based on facial mapping.
7 Ibid [146].

between the unknown individual image with several images which are already known8. In the
same way, body mapping is done in a similar manner where the focus is on the body, movement,
and posture. Dr. Sutisno, therefore, reported a greater degree of anatomical similarity between
the obtained images and Tang.
Issues that arose after the presentation of the forensic evidence
Evidence that was presented by Dr. Sutisno received a lot of criticism from the jury and the
judges9. At the initial trial, Dr. Sutisno’s evidence was accepted by the presiding District Court
Judge known as Finnane. However, Spigelman CJ in the transcript judgment, did not agree with
her evidence as well as other Forensic Practitioners evidence. The dismissal was based on the
fact that Dr. Sutisno did not give out the terms or explain them to the jury regarding the strict
protocol that she used. Also, she did not determine the origin of the protocol used as well as how
it was developed. Her basis was due to patenting of her innovations and, hence, she termed the
obtained information confidential. The fact that these results could not be shared freely with the
judges nor was the protocol and its basis identified, then they could not be accepted. As such, the
three appeal judges (Justice Adams, Justice Simpson, and Chief Justice Spigelman) made a
unanimous decision in granting an appeal10 and, thereby, a retrial was ordered. What the court
required was findings presented scientifically by a Forensic Practitioner and also based on
8 Seckiner, Dilan, Xanthé Mallett, Claude Roux, Didier Meuwly, and Philip Maynard. 2008.
"Forensic image analysis-CCTV distortion and artefacts." Forensic science international.
9 Ibid [140]– [141].
10 To its credit, the prosecution did not adduce facial mapping evidence at the subsequent re-trial.

scientific rigor. Dr. Sutisno findings, therefore, lacked this basic points and the reason why they
were dismissed.
Specialized knowledge11 is crucial in understanding and comprehending the process involved in
photographic evidence analysis. So the issue of failure of understanding arose among the jury as
they all lacked specialized knowledge. Australian Law Reform Commission recognizes the issue
of specialized knowledge that calls for a specific skill in a particular field of expertise. Study,
training, and experience, therefore, forms the basis of the specialized knowledge. Also, the jurors
do not only require unmediated photograph but more than that before they could find guilt in
someone due to the lengthy prison term. Additionally, the technique used left a lot of questions
and gaps in the process of fact-finding. The results as well could not be replicated in the court,
and so this caused a lot of questions. The body and facial techniques12 also used they could
somehow generate a variety of results rather than a specific outcome and, therefore, they were
regarded unreliable. Similarly, the expert was considered as a stranger to the suspect and so,
recognizing of the offender was not convincing. Also, the culture science and technology keeps
on changing from time-to-time13. The law is generally about facts while science keeps on
changing drastically. Therefore, this raises the issue whether the forensic evidence presented was
11 Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681, [137].
12 Kleinberg, Krista F., Peter Vanezis, and A. Mike Burton. 2007. "Failure of anthropometry as a
facial identification technique using high‐quality photographs." Journal of forensic sciences
52.4: 779-783.
13 Schofield, Damian, and Ken Fowle. 2013. "Technology corner visualising forensic data:
evidence guidelines (part 2)." The Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law: JDFSL 8.2:
93.

reliable and could be counted on by the court. For instance, DNA use such as DNA profiling14
has changed over the years. For that matter, some cases are being reassessed finding some people
to be innocent and those acquitted some are found guilty.
Analysis of the issues that arose from the evidence presented
The Hien Puoc Tang case received a lot of attention all over Australia and became a case to be
referenced due to the various issues that arose during the case analysis. Two among the three
offenders were found few days after the offense occurred while Hien Puoc Tang was linked to
the robbery by use of the fingerprints analysis eight months later15. The expert as well used the
surveillance footage to be able to identify the culprits through facial and body mapping.
However, this brought a lot of controversies since the footage was of poor quality and hence its
credibility could not be guaranteed.
Analysis of evidence arising from facial mapping and body mapping
The case of Hien Puoc Tang received an appeal based on the admissibility of the evidence
presented from the facial and body mapping techniques16. The Makita jurisprudence played a key
role in Tang’s case especially on the Court of Criminal Appeal, and it has been of significant
influence throughout the courts in the region of New South Wales in Australia. Through the
14 Gaensslen, Robert E., Robert Ramotowski, and Henry C. Lee. 2001 Advances in fingerprint
technology. CRC press.
15 Chief Justice Spigelman's judgment in R v Hien Puoc Tang [2006] NSWCCA 167 [at 138],
citing the US case of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc [1993] USSC 99.
16 Regina v Gardner CACD ([2004] EWCA Crim 1639, Bailii)
The court affirmed the general admissibility of expert facial comparison evidence.

analysis of Dr. Sutisno, she revealed that the person of interest that was on the surveillance
images was Hien Puoc Tang. But the images were of such a poor quality that their reliability
could not be guaranteed17. When she presented her findings, Chief Justice Spigelman rejected
them on the basis that they were not credible and he did not allow them to be left for the jury.
What was would make greater sense is high-quality images especially from the police, but police
evidence was also not allowed in this case. According to Dr. Sutisno, she was convinced in
herself that the analysis was reliable and the two persons were the same person. Due to the
diverse ideas arising from this evidence, a lot of objections arose and its admissibility since that
time became the main ground of appeal. The three judges (Spigelman CJ, Adams, and Simpson),
reviewed the evidence admissibility based on Section 79 which they explained it’s two limbs of
operations18. Identification of specialized knowledge is crucial under the first limb. It covers the
areas of study, training, and experience. On the second limb, the opinion given should be based
on the specialized knowledge wholly or substantially. Therefore, the court came to the
conclusion that facial mapping that Dr. Sutisno used was not based on specialized knowledge. As
such, her findings were not accepted as the determination of the identity of the unknown person
could not be guaranteed to be effective. Her emphasis on the unique identifiers factor was
described by the Court as ipse dixit19. The jury rejected the results because the reasoning process
17 Kleinberg, Krista F., Peter Vanezis, and A. Mike Burton. 2007. "Failure of anthropometry as a
facial identification technique using high‐quality photographs." Journal of forensic sciences
52.4: 779-783.
18 Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681, [134].
19 Ibid [154]. In the context of jurisprudence associated with expert evidence the term has a long
and pejorative pedigree. A useful illustration is the US Supreme Court’s decision in General
Electric Co v Joiner, 522 US 136, 146 (1997).

was inadequately explained. The final conclusion of the matter was that there was incapability of
the facial and body mapping techniques20 to provide supportive opinions on the identity of the
unknown person.
The issue escalated further when Dr. Sutisno explained that she combined her evidence with
police photographs. Therefore, she was described to be an ad hoc expert and hence given a
chance to testify only on the similarities that could be seen between the two images on a future
trial but not identify the accused as she did during the first trial. The decision by the court was
influenced by the Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc case21. Here, the United States
Supreme Court gave out a detailed explanation regarding the admissibility of opinions as it is
given in the Federal Rules of Evidence (1975) approach. The opinions had to be derived from a
specialized knowledge, technical, and scientific ideas. The term knowledge applies to the known
facts that can be proven beyond reasonable doubts as well as based on good grounds22.
Additionally, there has to be more than unsupported speculation or mere subjective belief.
20 Edmond, Gary, Katherine Biber, Richard Kemp, and Glenn Porter. 2008. "Law's Looking
Glass: Expert Identification Evidence Derived from Photogenic and Video Images." Current
Issues Crim. Just. 20: 337.
21 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579, 590 (1993) (‘Daubert’). For some
discussion of the US jurisprudence, see Gary Edmond, ‘Supersizing Daubert: Science for
Litigation and its Implications for Legal Practice and Scientific Research’ (2007) 52 Villanova
Law Review 857.
22 Tang (2006) 65 NSWLR 681, [138]

The same issue was seen in the Honeysett v The Queen case23 where evidence given by Professor
H, who is an expert in anthropology and anatomy was based purely on body mapping. The court
made a unanimous decision that the use of complicated language in evidence presentation
usually misleads rather than assist. On the legal grounds, his evidence was rejected based on the
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Other two experts as well questioned the validity of his evidence as
they thought that the methods he used were too subjective. His forensic identification also, where
he identified the offender by comparing the images on the CCTV cameras was under scrutiny to
determine whether he employed specialized knowledge or it was a mere subjective opinion.
The same issues arose in the Morgan v The Queen case, whereby the same Professor H, gave
evidence that was not reliable and under controversial circumstance similar to the Honeysett v
The Queen case24. Since the accuracy on how he carried out the research as well as the poor
explanation of the methodology, the Criminal Court of Appeal of NSW dismissed the evidence.
Such instances in these cases, affected the outcome of the decision by the judges and in most of
the times it formed the basis of the appeal by the accused, and in several times, the appeal was
allowed. The Australian courts in recent years have put more emphasize on scrutinizing expert
evidence especially regarding the admissibility25, presentation, and its use in future trials. Facial
photograph comparison techniques as much as they have been accepted in courts, many of the
times there is no database confirming the statistical basis of the evidence nor scientific basis.
23 Honeysett v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 135 at [63].
24 Sydney Law Review Journal Volume 36 No 2 'Before the High Court – Honeysett v The
Queen: Forensic Science, 'Specialised Knowledge' and the Uniform Evidence Law' by Gary
Edmond and Mehera San Roque
25 High Court case of Fitzgerald v The Queen [2014] HCA 28, where upon close scrutiny an
expert's opinion on DNA evidence was thrown out because of subtleties in the evidence.

Other similar cases to Tang’s case include; Makita Pty Ltd v Sprowles, Murdoch v The Queen26,
R v Jung, R v Kaliyanda, R v Pera, and R v Alrekabi. They were all based on the facial and body
mapping of evidence which was presented to the courts by various forensic analysts. In both,
there was also lack of credible sources based on the techniques used. The methods as well
required proper validation to ensure accurate and reliable results were obtained. Due to lack of
validation, the expert opinions were as well not reliable, and this affected the decision of the
judges significantly.
Reform and repercussions of the case
The Hien Puoc Tang case resulted into various repercussions as well as several reforms came in
effects. First, the methods that she used had not received validation in Australia. In most
instances, the use of morphological analysis to determine facial features leads to alterations due
to changes in photographic angles. Due to such issues, in the first trial, the judges agreed to grant
an appeal and, therefore, a retrial was ordered. There was a second and third trial where finally
Tang was found guilty on 27th Wednesday, August 2007. However, the basis of making the
decision was not the facial mapping evidence of Dr. Sutisno but rather the fingerprint evidence.
The case brought forth several points such as the importance of specialized knowledge and how
it affects the opinions of the experts. Reliability is also crucial and, therefore, the experts ought
to use reliable and validated techniques that prove beyond reasonable doubts their evidence.
The issue of changing nature of science as well came out during the analysis of this case
vigorously. The courts usually expect the Forensic Practitioner involved in the case to present
their findings and evidence in a scientific manner and with scientific rigor. The methodology
26 Regina v Hookway CACD (Bailii, [1999] EWCA Crim 212)
The defendant appealed against his conviction based on expert facial mapping evidence.

used as well as the research methods should be understood clearly and then communicated in
simple terms for every individual to understand. Such aspect lacked in Dr. Sutisno and the reason
why its validity and accuracy of her results raised a lot of questions. Science needs to be
understood to do away with any possible limitations that might affect your results. Scientific
skills in the techniques employed is also essential in producing reliable results. The Forensic
Practitioners should also be willing to accept criticisms when his ideas are being challenged. As
much as many people tend to think that science is stable with minimal changes, it is still being
tested, and some areas are found wanting by the colleagues in the field of science mainly due to
technology advancement.
Impact on forensic sciences practice
The Hien Puoc Tang case played a significant role in changing the world of the forensic science.
There was a lot that a Forensic Practitioner can learn from this case. First, the forensic science
has to satisfy two needs; the legal profession and scientific community27. The scientific and legal
outcomes need to be based on a similar thing and both aims at establishing a reliable basis of
fact. The issues that were raised regarding Dr. Sutisno techniques on facial and body mapping
can act as a learning ground for other Forensic Practitioners to learn from and hence avoid
making similar mistakes. For instance, they ought to understand clearly the methodology,
jurisprudence, and possible technicalities regarding their expertise. By doing so, they can make
accurate decisions and obtain reliable results that can be presented to the courts and convince
them beyond a reasonable doubt.
27 Saks, Michael J. 2002. "The legal and scientific evaluation of forensic science (especially
fingerprint expert testimony)." Seton Hall. L. Rev. 33: 1167.