In giving a Turnbull direction, the court should ‘(a) Warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting on that evidence.. (b) Instruct the jury as to the reason for such need. And (c) Refer the jury to the fact that a mistaken witness can be a convincing witness, and that a number of witnesses can be mistaken.’ In this case: ‘the reference to the fact that questions of identification give considerable concern to the Courts, that concern being based on the fact that mistakes (even by honest and genuine witnesses) are made, does not seem to us adequately to deal either with the Courts’ experience of the risks of miscarriages of justice or how convincing a mistaken witness can be. It does not put across the full force of the requirements that we are presently considering.’
Citations:
(1996) 1 Cr App R 51
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Elliott CACD 22-Dec-1997
The defendant appealed from convictions of wounding with intent, and murder. The issue was one of identification, and he criticised the absence of a full Turnbull direction.
Held: A Turnbull warning should warn the jury of the dangers inherent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187261