Identification evidence
SYLLABUS REFERENCE
18. Identification evidence and other issues relating to corroboration
The special need for caution required in identification cases,
The circumstances in which the judge may withdraw an identification case from
the jury,
The nature and content of a “Turnbull” warning,
The grounds on which the judge might exclude identification evidence
(consideration of Code D.3 of PACE will also be required),
The to make or challenge applications to exclude identification evidence,
The circumstances in which the judge might warn the jury about “suspect”
evidence as set out in the case of R v. Makanjuola [1995] 2 Cr App R 469
No DNA, No fingerprint, no Voice Identification
READING:
Required Reading
Blackstone’s Criminal Practice F18
Further Reading
CLS Evidence Manual 2014, Chapter 16
Keane and McKeown, The Modern Law of Evidence, 10th Edition, pp.248-257
Identification Evidence
Tendency for identification evidence to be unreliable and inaccurate
Can therefore lead to miscarriages of justice
Summary:
Identification evidence should be treated with care;
Code D and Turnbull guidelines operate to reduce risk of wrongful conviction;
Judge is required to give a Turnbull warning to the jury;
Judge must withdraw case from jury where ID evidence is poor and unsupported
Breaches of Code D may result in ID evidence being excluded under PACE 1984,
s78.
(1) The special need for caution – Turnbull warnings
Firstly, whenever the case against an accused depends wholly or substantially
on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which the
defence alleges to be mistaken, the judge should warn the jury of the special
need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of
the identification or identifications
1
, o In addition he should instruct them as to the reason for the need for such
a warning and should make some reference to the possibility that a
mistaken witness can be a convincing one and that a number of such
witnesses can all be mistaken
o Provided this is done in clear terms the judge need not use any particular
form of words
Secondly, the judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances
in which the identification by each witness came to be made
o Nature and content of a Turnbull warning:
Length of time of the observation
Distance from which observation was made;
Lighting conditions;
Any obstructions to the view;
Had the witness seen D before and if so how often or was there
some special reason for remembering D?
Time between the initial observation and any subsequent
identification procedure;
Any material discrepancy between the initial description given by
the witness and the actual appearance of D
If in any case, whether it is being dealt with summarily or
on indictment, the prosecution have reason to believe that
there is such a material discrepancy they should supply the
accused or his legal advisers with particulars of the
description the police were first given
In all cases if the accused asks to be given particulars of
such descriptions, the prosecution should supply them
Finally he should remind the jury of any specific weakness
which had appeared in the identification evidence
Recognition is more reliable than identification, but even a witness who
recognises someone can still be mistaken
o Jury should be reminded of this
If the quality of the identification evidence is good (long period of observation,
satisfactory conditions by a relative, friend, neighbour), the danger of mistaken
identification is lessened and the jury can be left to assess its value even though
there is no other evidence to support it: provided always, however, that an
adequate warning has been given about the special need for caution
However, if the evidence is poor the case should be withdrawn form the jury and
an acquittal directed
The judge should identify for the jury evidence which is capable of supporting
the identification and evidence which is not
2
SYLLABUS REFERENCE
18. Identification evidence and other issues relating to corroboration
The special need for caution required in identification cases,
The circumstances in which the judge may withdraw an identification case from
the jury,
The nature and content of a “Turnbull” warning,
The grounds on which the judge might exclude identification evidence
(consideration of Code D.3 of PACE will also be required),
The to make or challenge applications to exclude identification evidence,
The circumstances in which the judge might warn the jury about “suspect”
evidence as set out in the case of R v. Makanjuola [1995] 2 Cr App R 469
No DNA, No fingerprint, no Voice Identification
READING:
Required Reading
Blackstone’s Criminal Practice F18
Further Reading
CLS Evidence Manual 2014, Chapter 16
Keane and McKeown, The Modern Law of Evidence, 10th Edition, pp.248-257
Identification Evidence
Tendency for identification evidence to be unreliable and inaccurate
Can therefore lead to miscarriages of justice
Summary:
Identification evidence should be treated with care;
Code D and Turnbull guidelines operate to reduce risk of wrongful conviction;
Judge is required to give a Turnbull warning to the jury;
Judge must withdraw case from jury where ID evidence is poor and unsupported
Breaches of Code D may result in ID evidence being excluded under PACE 1984,
s78.
(1) The special need for caution – Turnbull warnings
Firstly, whenever the case against an accused depends wholly or substantially
on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which the
defence alleges to be mistaken, the judge should warn the jury of the special
need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of
the identification or identifications
1
, o In addition he should instruct them as to the reason for the need for such
a warning and should make some reference to the possibility that a
mistaken witness can be a convincing one and that a number of such
witnesses can all be mistaken
o Provided this is done in clear terms the judge need not use any particular
form of words
Secondly, the judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances
in which the identification by each witness came to be made
o Nature and content of a Turnbull warning:
Length of time of the observation
Distance from which observation was made;
Lighting conditions;
Any obstructions to the view;
Had the witness seen D before and if so how often or was there
some special reason for remembering D?
Time between the initial observation and any subsequent
identification procedure;
Any material discrepancy between the initial description given by
the witness and the actual appearance of D
If in any case, whether it is being dealt with summarily or
on indictment, the prosecution have reason to believe that
there is such a material discrepancy they should supply the
accused or his legal advisers with particulars of the
description the police were first given
In all cases if the accused asks to be given particulars of
such descriptions, the prosecution should supply them
Finally he should remind the jury of any specific weakness
which had appeared in the identification evidence
Recognition is more reliable than identification, but even a witness who
recognises someone can still be mistaken
o Jury should be reminded of this
If the quality of the identification evidence is good (long period of observation,
satisfactory conditions by a relative, friend, neighbour), the danger of mistaken
identification is lessened and the jury can be left to assess its value even though
there is no other evidence to support it: provided always, however, that an
adequate warning has been given about the special need for caution
However, if the evidence is poor the case should be withdrawn form the jury and
an acquittal directed
The judge should identify for the jury evidence which is capable of supporting
the identification and evidence which is not
2
