❓ WA Parliament QoN regarding police procedures for home burglary investigations, specifically forensic evidence collection, evidence requirements for laying charges, and the sufficiency of witness testimony and identification.
AnsweredQoN 276Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Do the police take a forensic sample, if available, from the crime scene in every case of home burglary? (2) How much direct evidence is needed in order to lay charges against a suspect in the case of a home burglary? (3) Is a witness' testimony and offender identification sufficient evidence to lay charges against a home burglary suspect? Answered on 5 September 2000 The Minister
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
5 September 2000
Response time
27 days
(1) In every case where police attend a home burglary offence, an assessment is made by the attending officer, as to whether or not forensic evidence is likely to be available. In recent times many police officers have received training in the obtaining of forensic samples and as a result the attending police officer will also secure any forensic material. In cases where the attending officer is not forensically trained and where forensic evidence is apparently available, arrangements are made for forensic officers to attend the scene and collect relevant material. (2) It is not essential that any direct evidence be available in order to lay charges against any suspect for any offence. The circumstances surrounding the commission of every offence will vary greatly in terms of the evidence that is available to police. It is not unusual for police to charge an offender purely on admissions made by that person coupled with the fact that an offence is reported which corresponds with the offenders admissions. Police will endeavour however, to obtain as much forensic evidence and witness evidence (direct and indirect) as is available in each investigation undertaken. (3) It may well be the case that eyewitness testimony coupled with offender identification may be sufficient evidence for police to lay charges in relation to a home burglary. However, much would depend upon the quality of the eyewitness testimony and also the method and manner in which an identification was conducted. Following decisions by the Court of Criminal Appeal, it may not be possible for police to charge an offender where a witness observes an offender commit a home burglary and then later identifies a suspect from a police 'photo board'.
(2) How much direct evidence is needed in order to lay charges against a suspect in the case of a home burglary? (3) Is a witness' testimony and offender identification sufficient evidence to lay charges against a home burglary suspect? Answered on 5 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) In every case where police attend a home burglary offence, an assessment is made by the attending officer, as to whether or not forensic evidence is likely to be available. In recent times many police officers have received training in the obtaining of forensic samples and as a result the attending police officer will also secure any forensic material. In cases where the attending officer is not forensically trained and where forensic evidence is apparently available, arrangements are made for forensic officers to attend the scene and collect relevant material. (2) It is not essential that any direct evidence be available in order to lay charges against any suspect for any offence. The circumstances surrounding the commission of every offence will vary greatly in terms of the evidence that is available to police. It is not unusual for police to charge an offender purely on admissions made by that person coupled with the fact that an offence is reported which corresponds with the offenders admissions. Police will endeavour however, to obtain as much forensic evidence and witness evidence (direct and indirect) as is available in each investigation undertaken. (3) It may well be the case that eyewitness testimony coupled with offender identification may be sufficient evidence for police to lay charges in relation to a home burglary. However, much would depend upon the quality of the eyewitness testimony and also the method and manner in which an identification was conducted. Following decisions by the Court of Criminal Appeal, it may not be possible for police to charge an offender where a witness observes an offender commit a home burglary and then later identifies a suspect from a police 'photo board'.
(3) Is a witness' testimony and offender identification sufficient evidence to lay charges against a home burglary suspect? Answered on 5 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) In every case where police attend a home burglary offence, an assessment is made by the attending officer, as to whether or not forensic evidence is likely to be available. In recent times many police officers have received training in the obtaining of forensic samples and as a result the attending police officer will also secure any forensic material. In cases where the attending officer is not forensically trained and where forensic evidence is apparently available, arrangements are made for forensic officers to attend the scene and collect relevant material. (2) It is not essential that any direct evidence be available in order to lay charges against any suspect for any offence. The circumstances surrounding the commission of every offence will vary greatly in terms of the evidence that is available to police. It is not unusual for police to charge an offender purely on admissions made by that person coupled with the fact that an offence is reported which corresponds with the offenders admissions. Police will endeavour however, to obtain as much forensic evidence and witness evidence (direct and indirect) as is available in each investigation undertaken. (3) It may well be the case that eyewitness testimony coupled with offender identification may be sufficient evidence for police to lay charges in relation to a home burglary. However, much would depend upon the quality of the eyewitness testimony and also the method and manner in which an identification was conducted. Following decisions by the Court of Criminal Appeal, it may not be possible for police to charge an offender where a witness observes an offender commit a home burglary and then later identifies a suspect from a police 'photo board'.
Answered on 5 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) In every case where police attend a home burglary offence, an assessment is made by the attending officer, as to whether or not forensic evidence is likely to be available. In recent times many police officers have received training in the obtaining of forensic samples and as a result the attending police officer will also secure any forensic material. In cases where the attending officer is not forensically trained and where forensic evidence is apparently available, arrangements are made for forensic officers to attend the scene and collect relevant material. (2) It is not essential that any direct evidence be available in order to lay charges against any suspect for any offence. The circumstances surrounding the commission of every offence will vary greatly in terms of the evidence that is available to police. It is not unusual for police to charge an offender purely on admissions made by that person coupled with the fact that an offence is reported which corresponds with the offenders admissions. Police will endeavour however, to obtain as much forensic evidence and witness evidence (direct and indirect) as is available in each investigation undertaken. (3) It may well be the case that eyewitness testimony coupled with offender identification may be sufficient evidence for police to lay charges in relation to a home burglary. However, much would depend upon the quality of the eyewitness testimony and also the method and manner in which an identification was conducted. Following decisions by the Court of Criminal Appeal, it may not be possible for police to charge an offender where a witness observes an offender commit a home burglary and then later identifies a suspect from a police 'photo board'.
(2) How much direct evidence is needed in order to lay charges against a suspect in the case of a home burglary? (3) Is a witness' testimony and offender identification sufficient evidence to lay charges against a home burglary suspect? Answered on 5 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) In every case where police attend a home burglary offence, an assessment is made by the attending officer, as to whether or not forensic evidence is likely to be available. In recent times many police officers have received training in the obtaining of forensic samples and as a result the attending police officer will also secure any forensic material. In cases where the attending officer is not forensically trained and where forensic evidence is apparently available, arrangements are made for forensic officers to attend the scene and collect relevant material. (2) It is not essential that any direct evidence be available in order to lay charges against any suspect for any offence. The circumstances surrounding the commission of every offence will vary greatly in terms of the evidence that is available to police. It is not unusual for police to charge an offender purely on admissions made by that person coupled with the fact that an offence is reported which corresponds with the offenders admissions. Police will endeavour however, to obtain as much forensic evidence and witness evidence (direct and indirect) as is available in each investigation undertaken. (3) It may well be the case that eyewitness testimony coupled with offender identification may be sufficient evidence for police to lay charges in relation to a home burglary. However, much would depend upon the quality of the eyewitness testimony and also the method and manner in which an identification was conducted. Following decisions by the Court of Criminal Appeal, it may not be possible for police to charge an offender where a witness observes an offender commit a home burglary and then later identifies a suspect from a police 'photo board'.
(3) Is a witness' testimony and offender identification sufficient evidence to lay charges against a home burglary suspect? Answered on 5 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) In every case where police attend a home burglary offence, an assessment is made by the attending officer, as to whether or not forensic evidence is likely to be available. In recent times many police officers have received training in the obtaining of forensic samples and as a result the attending police officer will also secure any forensic material. In cases where the attending officer is not forensically trained and where forensic evidence is apparently available, arrangements are made for forensic officers to attend the scene and collect relevant material. (2) It is not essential that any direct evidence be available in order to lay charges against any suspect for any offence. The circumstances surrounding the commission of every offence will vary greatly in terms of the evidence that is available to police. It is not unusual for police to charge an offender purely on admissions made by that person coupled with the fact that an offence is reported which corresponds with the offenders admissions. Police will endeavour however, to obtain as much forensic evidence and witness evidence (direct and indirect) as is available in each investigation undertaken. (3) It may well be the case that eyewitness testimony coupled with offender identification may be sufficient evidence for police to lay charges in relation to a home burglary. However, much would depend upon the quality of the eyewitness testimony and also the method and manner in which an identification was conducted. Following decisions by the Court of Criminal Appeal, it may not be possible for police to charge an offender where a witness observes an offender commit a home burglary and then later identifies a suspect from a police 'photo board'.
Answered on 5 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) In every case where police attend a home burglary offence, an assessment is made by the attending officer, as to whether or not forensic evidence is likely to be available. In recent times many police officers have received training in the obtaining of forensic samples and as a result the attending police officer will also secure any forensic material. In cases where the attending officer is not forensically trained and where forensic evidence is apparently available, arrangements are made for forensic officers to attend the scene and collect relevant material. (2) It is not essential that any direct evidence be available in order to lay charges against any suspect for any offence. The circumstances surrounding the commission of every offence will vary greatly in terms of the evidence that is available to police. It is not unusual for police to charge an offender purely on admissions made by that person coupled with the fact that an offence is reported which corresponds with the offenders admissions. Police will endeavour however, to obtain as much forensic evidence and witness evidence (direct and indirect) as is available in each investigation undertaken. (3) It may well be the case that eyewitness testimony coupled with offender identification may be sufficient evidence for police to lay charges in relation to a home burglary. However, much would depend upon the quality of the eyewitness testimony and also the method and manner in which an identification was conducted. Following decisions by the Court of Criminal Appeal, it may not be possible for police to charge an offender where a witness observes an offender commit a home burglary and then later identifies a suspect from a police 'photo board'.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.