PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20385, 23 October 1940, Page 8

PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF

USE IN DIVORCE CASES ALMOST IMPRACTICABLE N.S.W. LAWYER’S VIEWS SYDNEY. Oct. 1. A leading divorce lawyer yesterday dismissed as “98 per cent impracticable" the suggestion by the Judge in Divorce, Mr. Justice Bonney, that | flashlight photography should be used more in divorce evidence. “The use of photography is theoretically flawless but when put into practice is a very difficult and doubtful means of getting evidence,” he said. “I would like to give the judge a camera, show him a sitter and watch the result. I don’t think he would be an advocate of photography after that. “During the past 20 years I have used flashlight photography twice to get conclusive evidence, and once it was a dud because the flash and the camera did not synchronise. “The camera is not used at present more than once in 10.000 cases, mainly because the individuals involved do not usually wait patiently for a photograph to be taken illustrating their infidelity. “I know of one case in which the visual evidence was conclusive, but the developed plate was a failure. During the case the evidence was given and the blank photograph produced as evidence that a picture had been taken, but the opposing solicitor immediately suggested that the evidence was invention and the photograph had been faked because no evidence had been pictorially recorded. “That is the danger of this method. Photography, however, might be a means of stopping the enormous amount of doubtful evidence in divorce cases. Much of the evidence submitted, though not actually invented, is well touched up. “The use of photography might save the innocent person from evidence which, in court, seems absolutely conclusive.”