Ebanks (Jurt) v The Queen: PC 16 Feb 2006

(Jamaica) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that identification evidence had been wrongly admitted and also if that appeal failed against the sentence of death. Though the witness knew the defendant, an identification parade was held.
Held: The parade had been held, and though the judge had incorrectly told the jury it had not been necessary, he had repeatedly told the jury of the need for caution in identification cases. It was said to be a capital murder because the victim was to be a witness in criminal proceedings. Though the direction had not been meticulous it was not defective. At the time this had been a capital offence, but the law had since been revised. In view of that change the defendant was to be remitted to the court of appeal for resentencing.
[2006] UKPC 6, Times 31-Mar-2006
Bailii
Citing:
CitedGoldson and McGlashan v The Queen PC 23-Mar-2000
PC (Jamaica) The holding of an identification parade was desirable where the witness’s claim to have known and recognised the suspect is disputed. Lord Hoffmann referring to the defendant’s denial that he was the . .
CitedAurelio Pop v The Queen PC 22-May-2003
PC (Belize) A witness identified the accused only making the link between the man he knew as R and the accused as the result of an improper leading question by prosecuting counsel. There had been no . .
CitedRegina v Harris CACD 2003
The trial judge had said to the jury that in cases of purported recognition by the witness of the accused as somebody known to him, an identification would, generally speaking, serve no useful purpose.
Held: He was in error and that the . .
CitedWatson v Regina PC 7-Jul-2004
(Jamaica) The defendant was convicted of two murders from the same incident. The Act provided for the death penalty if he was convicted of a second murder. He appealed the death sentence in the circumstances, and said also that it was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 January 2021; Ref: scu.238741