Visual identification — voice identification — Evidence Act 2006, ss 4, 45(1), 45(4)(e), 46 — R v Edmonds [2010] 1 NZLR 762 — Harney v Police [2012] 1 NZLR 725 — Hohipa v R [2015] NZCA 73. The defendant faced a charge of burglary, and in this pretrial matter the Crown sought to admit visual and voice identification as evidence. The complainant was a teenage girl who had known the defendant all her life. She alleged that she had encountered the defendant when he broke into her house late at night, and claimed to be able to recognise him from seeing part of his face and hearing his voice. The police conducted no formal identification procedure, so the Crown relied on the complainant's identification of the defendant in her statement to the police, and the fact that she had known him her whole life. The court accepted that the police had good reason not to conduct a formal identification procedure; therefore the defendant needed to show that the complainant's identification of him was unreliable. The defendant argued that the circumstances of the identification were difficult, as the house was dark and the complainant had just woken up. Further the defendant alleged that the complainant had a grudge against him. Given the complainant's long-standing familiarity with the defendant and the fact that she identified him by both his voice and appearance, the court found that her identification of the defendant as the burglar was reliable. The court therefore ruled that the evidence of visual and voice identification was admissible. Judgment Date: 27 February 2018. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *