The court rehearsed the Australian cases on the dangers of relying upon identification evidence, the need for proper jury directions, and the dangers of a court of appeal maintaining a conviction where an inadequate direction had been given relying upon other evidence in the case. It was still the judge’s duty to give a Turnbull warning even if the defence was not relying on the possibility of mistake, the thrust of the defence simply being to challenge the veracity of the witness. A direction was given on the award of costs of an applicant to the Privy Council.
Times 30-Jun-1993, (1993) 97 Cr App R 409
Commonwealth
Citing:
Cited – Domican v The Queen 1992
(Australia) Mason CJ said: ‘A trial judge is not absolved from his or her duty to give general and specific warnings concerning the danger of convicting on identification evidence because there is other evidence, which, if accepted, is sufficient to . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bertrand Roberts and Roland Roberts v The State PC 15-Jan-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellants had been convicted of murder and their capital sentences commuted. They now sought to challenge the convictions as to the admission of and directions given on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Costs, Commonwealth
Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.89843