Dock Identification

Question 1

Dock identification

Answer 1

One of most common methods of identification used in Scottish criminal procedures

However

Safety of relying solely on it has been constantly criticised and it’s inevitable that MofJ can occur due to human fallibility

Question 2

P
V
Williams

Answer 2

Difficulties facing children and vulnerable witnesses

Indecent assault of 2 child complainer

Referred to him as dad and Big e but neither asked to identify whether he was in court

Quashed

Question 3

Muldoon
V
Herring

Answer 3

Sometimes witnesses unable to identify accused in court, particularly if long time passed since incident

Possible to deal with such issues by allowing prosecution to produce evidence that accused was identified by witness on earlier occasion

Question 4

Holland
V
HMA

Answer 4

DI highly controversial as Highly suggestible

Where DI is in issue, it is good practise to also hold identity parade and not solely rely on DI although, it it art6 ECHR compliant

Question 5

Post Holland

Answer 5

String of unsuccessful appeals based on DI

But high court has made the dangers clear and that these should in certain circumstances be explained to the jury

(Jenkins v HMA)

Question 6

Ralston
V
HMA

Answer 6

Identification need not be unequivocal but must be positive

Where witness gives evidence that accused resembles perpetrator, this would be sufficient to corroborate an explicit identification

Question 7

Farmer
V
HMA

Answer 7

Where witness identifies accused and then adds “I think”

This may still be treated as positive identification

Question 8

Macdonald
V
HMA

Answer 8

However

Where witness states that accused does not look unlike perpetrator,

This was not held to constitute a positive identification