Identification MCQs Flashcards
You are representing a client who is on trial for grievous bodily harm with intent at the Crown Court. The only evidence against her is an independent witness who saw her strike the victim with a metal bar.
Which of these statements best sets out the law with regard to identification evidence?
The identification evidence is unsupported and the only evidence against your client so the judge will have to remind the jury of the weakness of the evidence during summing up.
The identification evidence is unsupported but there is no need to give any particular direction to the jury as they will consider the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence as part of their deliberations.
The identification evidence is unsupported so the judge is obliged to withdraw the case from the jury.
The identification evidence is unsupported and the prosecution case wholly depends on the correctness of the identification so the judge must give a special direction to the jury.
The identification evidence is unsupported and the prosecution case wholly depends on the correctness of the identification so the judge must give a special direction to the jury.
Correct. The judge must give a Turnbull direction. Failure to do so is likely to mean the conviction would be quashed on appeal.
The other answers while plausible are incorrect:
The judge might consider withdrawing the case from the jury but they are not obliged to do so.
It is not necessarily the case that the ID evidence is weak (that is a matter for the jury), instead a Turnbull direction deals with the possibility of mistaken identification.
A Turnbull direction must be given in this situation
The Judge does not decide on the strength or weakness but instead gives a Turnbull direction.
The Defendant is on trial for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. The Prosecution case is that the Defendant and the Complainant did not know each other before the incident. There is evidence from a female witness who claims she saw the assault in the street although she did not know either of them. There is another witness who gives evidence of what she saw. During cross-examination, the female witness accepted that the incident happened 60 yards away. She accepted that her view was partially obstructed by bushes in a neighbouring garden but maintains she is correct in her identification.
Which of the following is the most appropriate course for the Judge to take in this situation?
The judge should allow the case to go to the jury but give a Turnbull warning.
The judge should allow the case to go to the jury without the need for a Turnbull warning.
The judge should exclude evidence of the identification under Section 78 PACE 1984.
The judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal.
The judge should allow the case to go to the jury but give a Turnbull warning.
Correct. A Turnbull direction should be given when the case against the accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of the identification – Turnbull [1977] 63 Cr App 132.
The other answers while plausible are incorrect:
The Judge is unlikely to exclude the evidence as this is unlikely to satisfy the provisions of Section 78 PACE 1984; the witness is not casting doubt on her own eye witness evidence by, for example, indicating that she is not sure that her evidence is correct or by disowning the original identification.
A Turnbull warning should be given as the case wholly or substantially depends on the correctness of the identification evidence of this witness. In addition, the witness did not know the Defendant and makes it more likely that a Turnbull direction should be given.
The case should not be withdrawn from the jury. The witness has not accepted, for example, that she cannot be sure of her identification, but has given evidence that her identification was obstructed and she was some distance away.
A burglary takes place at a jewellery shop in the early hours of the morning. The police were called to the incident by the manager of a bar which is situated opposite the jewellery shop ten metres away. The manager of the bar viewed the burglary via the bar’s closed circuit television (CCTV) system, however no recording of the burglary is available because the CCTV system was faulty.
The manager gave a statement to the police indicating that, despite the poor street lighting, he recognised the offender as a man who used to work in the bar until one year ago. He names the man to the police.
The man, who has previous convictions for burglary, is arrested by the police. In his police interview under caution, the man agrees that he used to work in the bar, but denies that he committed the burglary. The police are considering whether to hold an identification procedure.
Would an identification procedure serve a useful purpose in this case?
A. Yes, because the witness viewed the burglary via a CCTV camera which failed to record the incident.
B. No, because the man is known to the witness.
C. Yes, because the man is known to the police.
D. No, because the lighting at the time of the offence was poor.
E. No, because the distance between the jewellery shop and the bar was too great.
B. No, because the man is known to the witness.
