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 person whom the identifying witness Claudette claimed to know by his nickname: ‘The truth of this issue could have been tested by an identification parade. If Claudette had failed to pick out the accused on the parade, her assertion that the accused were known to her would have been shown to be false. By not holding identification parades, the police had denied the accused an opportunity to demonstrate conclusively that she was not telling the truth. On the other hand, if she had picked them out, the prosecution case would have been strengthened, although the judge would have had to direct the jury that the evidence went only to support her claim that she knew them and did not in any way confirm her identification of the gunmen.’ The function of the parade in such circumstances is not the normal one of testing the accuracy of the witness’s recollection of the person identified, but to test the honesty of her assertion that she knew the accused.
Lord Hoffmann said that ‘a dock identification is unsatisfactory and ought not to be allowed,’ although ‘Unless the witness had provided the police with a complete identification by name or description, so as to enable the police to take the accused into custody, the previous identification should take the form of an identification parade.’
Lord Hoffmann
[2000] UKPC 9, Appeal No 64 of 1998, (2000) 56 WIR 444
Bailii, PC
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – John v The State PC 16-Mar-2009
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. The evidence against him was of identification by a man, also criminally involved, who had been given immunity. No identification parade was held.
Held: It was clear from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 August 2021; Ref: scu.163222
