Identification and Lies Flashcards
What does the Devlin report specify about Eye Witness evidence?
“We are satisfied that in cases which depend wholly or mainly on eye-witness evidence of ID there is a special risk of wrong conviction. It arises because the value of such evidence is exceptionally difficult to assess”
What is the first point of the Turnbull (1977) direction?
Whenever the case against the accused depends wholly/substantially on the correctness of one or more ID of the accused which the D alleges to be mistaken, the judge should warn jury of special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identification(s)
What is the second point of the Turnbull direction?
The judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the ID by each witness came to be made. This consists of 8 questions which should be answered.
What are the 8 questions asked in the second point of turnbull (ADVOCATE)
- How long did the witness have the accused under observation?
- At what distance?
- In what light?
- Was the observation impeded?
- Had the witness seen the accused before?
- How often?
- If occasionally, had he any special reason for remembering the accused?
- How long had elapsed between observation and ID to police?
What is the third point in the Turnbull direction?
Was there any material discrepency between the description of the accused given to the police by the witness when first seen, and his actual appearance?
What is the fourth point of the Turnbull direction?
If in any case, whether being dealt with summarily or on indictment, the prosecution have reason to believe that there is such a material discrepency they should supply the accused/legal advisers with particculars of the description the police were first given.
In all cases where D asks for particulars of such descriptions, the P should supply them. Finally, he should remind jury of any weakness which had appeared in ID evidence.
What is the fifth point of the turnbull direction?
Recognition may be more reliable than ID of a stranger; but even when the witness is purporting to recognise someone he knows, the jury should be reminded that mistakes in recognition of close relatives and friends are sometimes made.
What is the fifth point of the Turnbull direction?
When the quality is good, the jury can safely be left to assess the value of the ID evidence even though there is no other evidence to support it: provided always however, that an adequate warning has been given for the special need for caution.
What is the 7th point of the Turnbull direction?
When in judgement of the trial judge, the quality of the ID evidence is poor, the judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence which goes to support the correctness of the ID.
What is the 8th point of the Turnbull direction?
The trial judge should identify to the jury the evidence which he adjudges is capable of supporting the evidence of ID. If there is any evidence or circumstances which the jury might think was supporting when it did not have this quality, the jury should say so.
What is the 9th point of the Turnbull direction?
- Care should be taken by the judge when directing the jury about support for an ID which may be derived from the fact that they have rejected an alibi.
- It is only when the jury is satisfied that the sole reason for fabrication of an alibi was to deceive them and there is no other explanation for its being put forward can fabrication provide any support for ID evidence.
- Jury should be reminded that proving the accused has told lies about where he was at the time does not by itself prove that he was where the ID witness says he was.
What did Reid v R (1990) establish after Turnbull?
A failure to observe the guidelines often leads to a successful appeal.
“It is only in the most exceptional circumstances that a conviction based on uncorroborated ID evidence will be sustained in the absence of such a warning”
Exceptional circumstances:
Freemantle v R (1994) - exceptionally good quality ID.
What can amount to supporting evidence to “shore up” a weak ID?
If a defendant lies in police interview and says he was somewhere else at the time but this is then proved to be a “false alibi”, a careful direction by the Judge is required: a LUCAS direction.
What are the 2 categories of cases in which a LUCAS direction should be given?
Burge and Pegg 1996 suggested 4 categories of cases that require a LUCAS direction. The 2 of interest are:
- When a false alibi is given by the defendant.
- Where the prosecution seeks to show that something that the defendant said, either in or out of court, in relation to a separate and distinct issue, was a lie, and the prosecution relies on that lie as evidence of guilt in relation to the charge.
LUCAS not required when lies are used to challenge D’s credit.
When is a Turnbull direction not required?
- If no possibility of the witness being mistaken about ID e.g. Slater 1995
- Evidence is a description, rather than ID e.g. Browning 1991
- Where the Defence allege the ID witness is lying. The issue is then witness motive and credibility. Cape 1996
- What if the defence has a two-pronged attack? Beckford 1993
