A growing number of experts examine and
assess photographic evidence, which can be
difficult to interpret.
Photo by Katherine Biber

A love of history, Australian cinema and a strong sense of social justice have combined to drive Dr Katherine Biber to examine the use of visual imagery in criminal trials. After completing her postgraduate degree on the history of Australian cinema Biber returned to study undergraduate law and postgraduate criminology while working in community legal centres. The marginalisation and social disadvantage experienced by community legal centre clients have provided a context for her research interests.

Eyewitness and photographic evidence have long played a role securing convictions in criminal trials, but the problems associated with both are well documented. People who witness crimes are often left traumatised and can be confused about what they actually saw, providing conflicting reports which make for unreliable evidence.

Photographic evidence is often dependent on the quality of the images and presents difficulties in recognising people from those images. However, the proliferation of CCTV cameras means that visual imagery is increasingly becoming important in criminal trials.

Last year alone the City of Sydney, which has an 82-camera CCTV network, transferred footage of 715 incidents to police to assist with prosecutions. Dr Biber points out, “These images cannot speak; essentially they have to be interpreted. There are a growing number of experts in this field, from facial mapping to photogrammetry, forensic anatomy to facial anthropology, but there is a real need to evaluate the scientific validity of these techniques.”

Associate Professor Katherine Biber studies the ‘experts’ who look at surveillance evidence. A landmark High Court ruling in the 2001 Smith case challenged a prosecution that was based on two policemen identifying an individual from a CCTV still taken during a bank robbery. The High Court overturned the initial conviction on the basis that the police were not specialists in making photographic identifications, and their evidence didn’t assist the jury’s own process of identifying the perpetrator in the images. The consequence of the Smith decision is that new types of ‘experts’ are now called to testify, claiming that they have unique skills and ability to recognise people in unclear photographs.

Katherine Biber (above) is researching and
standardising the scientific reliability of analysing
surveillance footage.
Photo by Katherine Biber

Biber’s latest research aims to examine the scientific rigour around these emerging fields. She is currently setting up an interdisciplinary group made up of legal professionals, the police force, forensic scientists, and leading experts in anatomy, photography and cognitive psychology to examine the effectiveness of visual identification evidence.

This research is driven by a desire to “improve the reliability of visual identification evidence,” Biber says. “In a court of law, the rules are supposed to ensure that only evidence about facts can be adduced. Where evidence is based upon someone’s opinion, it is only admissible if the opinion comes from someone who is in a special position to know something, for instance they may have specialised or expert skills, knowledge and experience.

Courts can only have confidence in this opinion evidence if the methodology, reliability and results of these new techniques can be shown to actually assist the making of visual identifications. This research may play a key role in building that confidence.” Dr Biber also believes that this research will help to shape the future of scientific innovations in this area. “This area of expertise is continually developing, and collaborative projects like this mean that legal professionals are aware of technical innovations in this field and can participate in their development. The purpose is to ensure that scientific advances are able to produce evidence that is relevant, useful and legally admissible, ensuring that visual evidence is more reliable and effective.”

Visual identification evidence in criminal cases is incredibly important, and its use continues to expand as surveillance technology becomes more pervasive; this research aims to ensure that this evidence does not undermine the fundamental rights of people accused of crimes, who are entitled to a fair trial based upon strong evidence, where guilty verdicts are only reached when all reasonable doubts have been eliminated. Although in its initial phases this research could go a long way to ensuring safer verdicts are reached in our criminal courts.