The defendant was accused of murder. He had been identified by a witness who knew him, but the witness himself was murdered before the trial. The court allowed the prosecutor to read the deceased witness’ statement. Another witness for whom an ID parade had been held had only seen the defendant from the rear, but the defence were not informed of this before the parade.
Held: The scheme of the code required an identification parade if identification was disputed, but it was also required before a parade that the officer believed it would be useful, and the suspect consented. There could be no requirement to inform a suspect of the angle from which the suspect had been seen. The consent was not as to the identification, but the process of the parade, and therefore it did not affect the fairness of introducing the evidence. As to the admission of the evidence of the deceased witness, it was more than a fleeting glimpse, and no counsel would wish to cross examine such a witness in great depth. The conviction was safe.
Judges:
Lord Justice Longmore Mr Justice Gibbs And The Recorder Of Leeds
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Crim 464
Links:
Statutes:
Code of Practice for the Identification of Persons by Police Officers (Code D of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Criminal Justice Act 1988 26
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Lee Admn 18-Mar-1999
Application for judicial review of CPS decision on disclosure of evidence before committal.
Held: The court recognised an ongoing duty of disclosure from the time of arrest. At the stage before committal, there are continuing obligations on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Evidence, Police
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167999
