18. Visual Identification Evidence
Includes:
- Visual Identification
- Recognition
- Breaches of Code D
- Dock Identification
- Turnbull Guidelines
- Stopping a Trial Based on Inadequate Information (Galbraith
continued).
Visual Identification
Visual identification is the process of an eye-witness to a crime being able to formerly
confirm the identity of a culprit.
F19.1 Unfortunately, the visual identification of suspects by witnesses has long been seen as
unreliable. Cases of mistaken identification constitute, by far, the greatest cause of
actual or possible wrong convictions.
The main safeguards introduced to combat this are contained under PACE Code D.*
Code D introduces measures designed to test a witness’s ability to identify, under
controlled conditions, any suspect they claim to have seen or recognise on a
previous occasion. They also require witnesses to provide the police with descriptions of
offenders, so any subsequent ID can be compared with this original description.
The other safeguards take place at trial stage, where matters of identification can be
challenged at trial. The Court of Appeal case of Turnbull (1977) provides the guidelines
on how judges should deal with such contests.
19.2 It is important to distinguish between identification evidence and evidence that
incriminates by other means. A description of the culprit or their clothing is not
identification evidence, even if it is a match with the defendant. It is also not
identification evidence where the witness states the culprit was the driver of a
particular vehicle, or the companion of another person.
- This information can instead be used for the police to formulate and detain
suspects, who can then be identified by a witness under the Code D
processes.
Methods of Visual Identification
Under Code D, the methods of visual identification are as follows:
Video/ photo Identification;
- Witness is shown at least 12 photos or videos of multiple people resembling the
description and have to pick out who they think is the culprit.
Identification Parade;
- Line-up of at 8 people resembling suspect, witness has to pick out culprit.
Group identification;
19.3 The- Code
WhereD the
andwitness
Turnbull
mayprocedures
be taken to aaren’t utilised
public place inand
to try every
seecase,
if they for
can spot the
example where the witnesses claim to know the defendant well and for many years
culprit.
Confrontation
- Witness is taken directly to suspect and asked if it is them. Only used in
exceptional circumstances.
, and have observed them at close range and in conditions of perfect visibility for
several minutes, or have conversed with them in the same room.
However, even in such situations, mistakes can happen and case law has shown as
soon as soon as the defendant questions the witnesses ability to recognise
him, an identification issue has arisen and the Code D procedures should be
followed (‘I’ve never heard of them’ etc.).
Recognition
Recognition is a form of identification by a person who is not an eye witness to an
offence.
The distinction between an ‘identification witness’ and a ‘recognition witness’ is that
an identification witness is one who would deem the culprit ‘previously unknown by
sight before the alleged crime’ whereas a recognition witness is one who has ‘prior
knowledge of the accused, enabling them to recognised the accused at the time of
the alleged crime’.
- An identification witness may become a recognition witness if the
crime has taken place over a long period of time, enabling to
acquire sufficient knowledge of the culprit.
Recognition evidence can be obtained in two ways:
Controlled Recognition
Where a person is visually shown groups of media and asked if they
recognise anyone in the material.
Uncontrolled Recognition
Where films or photographs are released to the public (usually in manhunt
situations).
Recognition evidence is generally stronger but can be problematic as they can
be more prone to error (‘I could’ve sworn it was you’).
In cases where someone is recognised Code D procedures can be
inappropriate and it is sometimes better to leave the issue to be contested at trial.
- This is because a witness purporting to have recognised someone could simply be
mistaken but will be able to recognise them in a line-up.
Breaches of Code D
Includes:
- Visual Identification
- Recognition
- Breaches of Code D
- Dock Identification
- Turnbull Guidelines
- Stopping a Trial Based on Inadequate Information (Galbraith
continued).
Visual Identification
Visual identification is the process of an eye-witness to a crime being able to formerly
confirm the identity of a culprit.
F19.1 Unfortunately, the visual identification of suspects by witnesses has long been seen as
unreliable. Cases of mistaken identification constitute, by far, the greatest cause of
actual or possible wrong convictions.
The main safeguards introduced to combat this are contained under PACE Code D.*
Code D introduces measures designed to test a witness’s ability to identify, under
controlled conditions, any suspect they claim to have seen or recognise on a
previous occasion. They also require witnesses to provide the police with descriptions of
offenders, so any subsequent ID can be compared with this original description.
The other safeguards take place at trial stage, where matters of identification can be
challenged at trial. The Court of Appeal case of Turnbull (1977) provides the guidelines
on how judges should deal with such contests.
19.2 It is important to distinguish between identification evidence and evidence that
incriminates by other means. A description of the culprit or their clothing is not
identification evidence, even if it is a match with the defendant. It is also not
identification evidence where the witness states the culprit was the driver of a
particular vehicle, or the companion of another person.
- This information can instead be used for the police to formulate and detain
suspects, who can then be identified by a witness under the Code D
processes.
Methods of Visual Identification
Under Code D, the methods of visual identification are as follows:
Video/ photo Identification;
- Witness is shown at least 12 photos or videos of multiple people resembling the
description and have to pick out who they think is the culprit.
Identification Parade;
- Line-up of at 8 people resembling suspect, witness has to pick out culprit.
Group identification;
19.3 The- Code
WhereD the
andwitness
Turnbull
mayprocedures
be taken to aaren’t utilised
public place inand
to try every
seecase,
if they for
can spot the
example where the witnesses claim to know the defendant well and for many years
culprit.
Confrontation
- Witness is taken directly to suspect and asked if it is them. Only used in
exceptional circumstances.
, and have observed them at close range and in conditions of perfect visibility for
several minutes, or have conversed with them in the same room.
However, even in such situations, mistakes can happen and case law has shown as
soon as soon as the defendant questions the witnesses ability to recognise
him, an identification issue has arisen and the Code D procedures should be
followed (‘I’ve never heard of them’ etc.).
Recognition
Recognition is a form of identification by a person who is not an eye witness to an
offence.
The distinction between an ‘identification witness’ and a ‘recognition witness’ is that
an identification witness is one who would deem the culprit ‘previously unknown by
sight before the alleged crime’ whereas a recognition witness is one who has ‘prior
knowledge of the accused, enabling them to recognised the accused at the time of
the alleged crime’.
- An identification witness may become a recognition witness if the
crime has taken place over a long period of time, enabling to
acquire sufficient knowledge of the culprit.
Recognition evidence can be obtained in two ways:
Controlled Recognition
Where a person is visually shown groups of media and asked if they
recognise anyone in the material.
Uncontrolled Recognition
Where films or photographs are released to the public (usually in manhunt
situations).
Recognition evidence is generally stronger but can be problematic as they can
be more prone to error (‘I could’ve sworn it was you’).
In cases where someone is recognised Code D procedures can be
inappropriate and it is sometimes better to leave the issue to be contested at trial.
- This is because a witness purporting to have recognised someone could simply be
mistaken but will be able to recognise them in a line-up.
Breaches of Code D
