The provisions of the Code of Practice regarding identification parades are mandatory and additional unwritten conditions are not to be inserted. Where there was an identification and the suspect challenged that identification, and consented to the parade, the parade must be held. There is nothing in the words of code of practice to allow police officers not to hold an identification parades where the identification was considered to be already completed. There is nothing in the code to justify a distinction as to quality of identification evidence between that of a police officer and of a member of the public. In the past, identification which had received complete and unequivocal acceptance had proved to be the source of miscarriages of justice. Once a breach of the Codes was found, the trial judge must deal with this in his summing up in words which were appropriate to the situation. Nevertheless, in this case there had been a prior unequivocal identification. Lord Bingham of Cornhill: ‘If an eye-witness of a criminal incident makes plain to the police that he cannot identify the culprit, it will very probably be futile to invite that witness to attend an identification parade. If an eye-witness may be able to identify clothing worn by a culprit but not the culprit himself, it will probably be futile to mount an identification parade rather than simply inviting the witness to identify the clothing. If a case is one of pure recognition of someone well-known to the eye-witness, it may again be futile to hold an identification parade. But save in cases such as these, or other exceptional circumstances, the effect of paragraph 2.3 is clear: if (a) the police have sufficient information to justify the arrest of a particular person for suspected involvement in an offence, and (b) an eye-witness has identified or may be able to identify that person, and (c) the suspect disputes his identification as a person involved in the commission of that offence, an identification parade must be held if (d) the suspect consents and (e) paragraphs 2.4, 2.7 and 2.10 of Code D do not apply.’
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Citations:
Times 19-Dec-2000, Gazette 22-Feb-2001, [2000] UKHL 66, [2000] 1 CAR 430 (HL), [2001] 1 AC 473, [2001] 1 Crim App R 430, [2001] 2 WLR 1, [2001] 1 All ER 686
Links:
Statutes:
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v B (Attorney-General’s Reference No 3 of 1999); Regina v Weir CACD 26-May-2000
Where a defendant gave a sample of DNA during an investigation, but the sample was not destroyed on his acquittal, evidence obtained from a cross match relating to a different crime was not admissible. The statute requires the samples to be . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Charles CACD 19-Jul-2001
The defendants appealed convictions for robbery, disputing the admission of police and identification evidence. There had been several failures to comply with the codes of practice, including the failure to hold an identity parade when so requested, . .
Cited – S, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
Applied – McKenna v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Apr-2005
The defendant appealed a conviction for driving whilst disqualified. He said that an officer’s identification of him should have been excluded from evidence because no identification parade had been held.
Held: A parade should have been held: . .
Cited – Regina v Davis (Iain); Regina v Ellis, Regina v Gregory, Regina v Simms, Regina v Martin CACD 19-May-2006
The several defendants complained at the use at their trials of evidence given anonymously. The perceived need for anonymity arose because, from intimidation, the witnesses would not be willing to give their evidence without it.
Held: The . .
Cited – Dowsett v Criminal Cases Review Commission Admn 8-Jun-2007
The claimant had been convicted in 1993 of involvement in a murder. He had complained that the police had failed to disclose material which would have been of assistance to him. He had requested the Commission to take examine and pursue his appeal. . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.88458