Visual Identification evidence

Question 1

what are the situations that were held in DPP v Maguire regarding CCTV footage

Answer 1

3 situations where it can be used:
1. Where footage is used to determine whether the witness had reasonable opportunity to identify the
accused. Footage is used to support the witness – not identify the accused.
2. Where footage is used to allow people who know the accused to identify him. They should explain how
they know him and what factors make them believe it is him. Jury uses CCTV to ascertain credibility of
the witness.
3. Where its used as evidence to identify the accused, even though it is unsupported, It may only be used
where the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect.
A warning may also be given as the danger of relying on footage, and that there may be just a strong resemblance.

Question 2

what did Birmingham P. hold in the case DPP v. Synchulex

Answer 2

held that the world has moved on a great deal and that often high enough quality cctv is available. In
appropriate cases, this can be used as real evidence. The jury can satisfy themselves where its high in quality and
definition.

Question 3

Visual identification evidence

Answer 3

The credibility of the
testimony can be bolstered by evidence that the witness previously visually identified the culprit. The evidence
that the witness previously identified the witness is an exception to the rule against narrative.

Question 4

S.18(b) Criminal evidence Act 1992

situations in which witness must identify the accused

Answer 4

i. Where evidence is given that the accused was known to the witness before the date on which the
offence alleged to have been committed, the witness shall not be required to identify the accused at
the trial of the offence, unless the ct believes it in the interests of justice to do so.

ii. In any other case, evidence by a person other than the witness that the witness identified the accused
at an identification parade as being the offender shall be admissible as evidence that the accused was
so identified.

Otherwise, witness must identify them in ct.

Question 5

What is the Casey Warning

Answer 5

Kingsmill Moore J. set down the requirement that a warning must be given where correctness of an identification
is challenged. It is a minimum warning given in any case which depends on visual identification.

The rationale is that juries should be warned that if there verdict as to guilt of the prisoner is to depend wholly or
substantially on the correctness of such identification, they should bear in mind that there have been instances
where responsible witnesses and where honesty was not in question and opportunity had been adequate has given
rise to erroneous convictions.

They should be careful to accept this ID as correct – but are still free to convict if satisfied beyond a reasonable
doubt.

Question 6

what are the facts of DPP v. Christie?

Answer 6

Trial judge erred in not warning about risk surrounding about inter-racial identification. Should have reminded jury
to weigh up the white woman’s assertion of her ability to identify one black man from another. If visual
identification is admitted, the jury must be warning of the mistaken recognition of the past.

Question 7

pre-trial identification

Answer 7

The way in which a witness is identified the accused may affect the Casey warning. The less formal, the greater
need for caution.

Formal
This is the most reliable, it takes place under controlled circumstances at a parade.

Question 8

Photographs

DPP v. Rapple

Answer 8

Witness gave description, then identified the accused form the photo. A week later he was brought in the car to
identify the accused. CCA refused appeal.
i. Where the victim does not know the person, they should be shown photographs matching the
description as well as someone who doesn’t know the accused, based on the description. If the
witness recognises the accused, then there is a suspect.
ii. Here, the suspect refused so gardai had to use informal procedures. They did so in a fair and
reasonable manner.
iii. Use of photos is necessary to move from description to suspect. The fact there was no parade doesn’t
alter this situation.
iv. Gardai must behave with exemplary fairness, remembering that the state’s only focus is conviction
of the correct person.
v. There are 2 separate and distinct situations where photos are used. The first is where they get a
suspect, second is where a photo is shown, then a parade happens. Second is unacceptable.
vi. Jury was given proper warning.