phipps_dppPC2012
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He complained that he had been prejudiced because the jury were told that he had been produced from custody, and one of his witnesses was produced in court in chains, thus undermining their evidence. The court of appeal had accepted that the latter had been unexplained and heavy handed. He also complained of the use of evidence that his voice had been recognised.
Held: The appeal failed. The prejudice to the defendant was dealt with properly by the judge in his directions. As to the use of evidence of identification by voice recognition, ‘The judge could hardly have done more to bring to the attention the need for caution in considering this part of the evidence, and the reasons for it, and their duty to consider each of the witnesses individually.’
Lord Hope, Lord Dyson, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
[2012] UKPC 24
Bailii
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Turnbull and Another etc CCA 9-Jun-1976
The defendants appealed against their convictions which had been based upon evidence of visual identification.
Held: Identification evidence can be unreliable, and courts must take steps to reduce injustice. The judge should warn the jury of . .
Cited – Regina v Robb CACD 1991
The evidence of an expert to prove identification by voice was admissible. Also voice recognition evidence given by a phonetician was admissible as expert evidence; and that evidence of police officers who listened to disputed tapes and recognised . .
Cited – Regina v Clare, Regina v Peach CACD 7-Apr-1995
A Police Constable’s very detailed analysis of video evidence in a case made him an ad hoc expert on it.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ said: ‘The phrase ‘expert ad hoc’ seeks to put witnesses like Detective Parsons and PC Fitzpatrick into the . .
Cited – Aurelio 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 . .
Cited – Shand v The Queen PC 27-Nov-1995
(Jamaica) The case for the defence was that the identification witnesses were deliberately lying and it was not suggested that they were mistaken, so that the sole line of defence was fabrication. The identification evidence was exceptionally good . .
Cited – Flynn and Another, Regina v CACD 2-May-2008
The court considered the practice of identification by voice recognition, giving detailed guidance on its acceptance and use. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.461742