Visual Identification evidence Flashcards

1
Q

What’s NOT visual ID?

A
  • Mere description of culprit or clothing (i.e. physical characteristics)
  • Statement that culprit drove a particular vehicle, or companion of an ID’ed person

Descriptive ID

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Where accuracy of ID evidence is not in issue but instead W’s honesty. What’s NOT considered in this situation?

A

Neither PACE Code D nor Turnbull guidelines need be considered — otherwise merely risk confusing jury by focusing on wrong issue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What’s Visual Identification?

A

Visual Identification from eyewitness is 1 way of proving D committed crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Can ID issue arise even where W claims to recognise someone well known to them?

What direction should be given in these instances?

A

Yes, ID become an ISSUE

Even where’s the main line of defence BUT only where the possibility to a genuine mistake remains

Solution is to attack W honesty/truthfulness

  • Turnbull direction where there an alleged recognised
  • Code D is not useful in these instances
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What safeguards should be considered where the accuracy of ID is not an issue but the honesty of W is the issue?

A

None (no Turnbull or code D PACE)

  • risks of confusing jury by focussing on wrong issue
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are the 3 safeguards to Visual ID?

A

1) PACE code D
2) Turnbull Guidelines (apply at trial stage)
3) Rule against dock identification on trials on indictment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What’s the procedure PACE code D puts on place to test W’s ability to ID?

A

W who makes a Visual ID may be invited to take part in a CODE D procedure if police have a known suspect

  • Done under controlled conditions + test the ability to ID
  • Ws must provide PO descriptions so they be compared w/ original description (to test accuracy of ID)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Re: PACE Code D (consequence of breach not passing the test) - When will evidence be excluded? What’s the effect of not excluding evidence?

A

Excluded if:
- important safeguards have been faked (deliberately encounter W outside PS)

If evidence not excluded?

  • judge must give reasons to admit evidence obtained in breach
  • need to help jury understand the prejudice caused by breach and giving it weight as they think fit (e.g. W has lost the benefit of important ID safeguard)
  • Not need for a voir dire
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Where there’s been a breach of code D does not inevitably lead to exclusion of tainted evidence. What’s the test to assess the breach?

A

Whether breach may have caused significant prejudice to D?

no: no exclusion

Some prejudice may have been cause:
- is the adverse effect of admitting this evidence such that justice required the evidence to be excluded? s.78 PACE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Where there’s been a breach of visual ID evidence, what test must be considered when some prejudice may have ben caused to D?

A

S. 78 PACE

Consider whether adverse effect is such that justice requires the evidence to be excluded

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What’s the rule against dock ID?

A

Dock ID refers to the identification of A for the first time during the course of the trial itself (i.e. by a W who has not previously named or identified D by means of a Code D ID procedure)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

P will not invite Ws to identify D for the first time in court [on indictment] - unless?

A

1) W’s attendance at an earlier ID parade was unnecessary/impracticable [might be impracticable e.g. in minor summary offences],

(2) W invited to court to identify (for the first time) A from CCTV

or

(2) exceptional circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Can the use of dock ID lead to successful appeals against conviction?

A

Yes, it may

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

If W makes unsolicited dock ID, what the the judge do?

A

Trial judge may direct jury against giving it any wight or importance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

D not in custody & W identifies him at court - what happens here?

A

May need to be excluded, especially if considerable time has elapsed since alleged offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

W’s ability to make a leisurely ID not in doubt (recognition) - what happens?

A

May be admitted but a Turnbull direction still needed

15
Q
A
16
Q

When should a Turnbull direction be given?

A

Case against A depends WHOLLY/ SUBSTANTIALLY on correctness of one or more IDs of A which D alleges to be mistaken

17
Q

When giving a Turnbull direction the judge should: first Warn jury of special need for caution before convicting in reliance on the ID - and 3 more?

A

(1) Reason for the need for this warning

(2) Possibility that a mistaken W can be a convincing one

(3) A number of convincing Ws can all be mistaken

18
Q

When giving a Turnbull direction the judge should: 2) Direct that recognition may be more reliable than ID of a stranger - and (1)?

A
  • mistakes still happen in recognition of close friends/ relatives
19
Q

When giving a Turnbull direction the judge should: 3) Direct jury to closely examine circumstances in which observation made - and (8) more?

A

Examination of circumstances include:
1) Time under observation
2) Distance away
3) Lighting quality
4) Impediment to observation
5) Previously seen A
6) Frequency of previous sightings
7) If only occasionally, any special reasons for remembering A
8) Time lapse between original observation and subsequent ID

20
Q

When giving a Turnbull direction the judge should: 4) Actively identify (& remind jury of) any weakness in ID evidence - and (2) more regarding P/D duties?

A

1) If P has reasons to believe there is discrepancies, MUST supply D w/ police description

2) and where D asks for police description P should give

21
Q

When giving a Turnbull direction the judge should: 5) Actively identify any supporting evidence - and (2) more?

A

1) warn jury against reliance on anything that appears supportive but isn’t really

2) prior discussion w/ judge and counsel advised so judge knows how counsel intends to support/undermine ID evidence and counsel can get judge’s views

22
Q

What’s the form of the judge’s Turnbull direction? (3)

A

1) must be tailored to facts of case
2) jury must be warned that direction is based on past experience
3) robust direction required where P adduces hearsay ID evidence in statement of W who doesn’t testify at trial

23
Q

What’s the consequence of an inadequate Turnbull direction?

A

conviction quashed as unsafe (unless other evidence overwhelming)

24
Q

An inadequate Turnbull direction will normally quash conviction as unsafe, but there’s 3 exceptions. What are they?

A

1) principal/ sole defence if challenging credibility of ID’ing W (in rare cases a Turnbull warning is not required or can be given more briefly)

2) ID of motor vehicles ( reliability lies on satisfactory opportunity to see vehicle and ability to distinguish between model - this should be drawn to jury’s attention)

3) D’s presence at scene of crime is admitted and W IDs a person in a well-identified group as the one who struck him

25
Q

What type of evidence is capable of supporting W ID? (4)

A

1) Bad Character or previous conviction
- needs careful handling

2) Mutually supportive IDs
- 2 + disputed IDs if D can be treated as mutually supportive (carried more weight)
- Each must be of sufficient quality
- Jury must consider quality of each W’s ID evidence separately

3) Self-incrimination
(next Q)

4) A’s silence
(next Q)

  • These are not evidence of G
  • Not a substitute for satisfactory ID evidence
  • May lead to inferences that P evidence is correct and that D has not defence
26
Q

Supporting evidence of Turnbull can be self-incrimination. What are the considerations here?

A

3) Self-incrimination
- Disputed ID can be supported by an admissible confession (care needed where D have incriminated themselves by false abilis/ other lies)

  • Before self- incrimination by lies can support an ID:
    a) lies must be deliberate and material
    b) court/jury must be able to discount possible innocent motive for lies
    c) lies must be proved by other evidence (other than IDs)
27
Q

Supporting evidence of Turnbull can be A’s silence. What are the considerations here?

A

4) A’s silence
D failure may entitle jury/court to draw such inferences as appear proper:

a) to mention facts when questioned/ charged which they later rely on as part of their defence

b) to account for objects/ substances/ marks on their body/clothes/possession

c) account for their presence in x place

d) to testify in their trial

28
Q

Regarding the quality of W ID. There’s some conditions of Ws that affords them more/less reliability. These should be considered, what are these?

A

1) Some Ws are better than other ( perfect vision vs nearly blind)

2) PO by virtue of training are more observant (more reliable)

29
Q

When stopping a trial based on inadequate ID, the court should apply ‘an acute combination of Galbraith & Turnbull’, looking principally at (1)?

A

Test: is there sufficient evi on which a jury could properly convict? (need not be particularly strong and be felt to juru despite D pointing out several deficiencies in evi)

1) Quality of ID evidence:

a) Good - leave to jury even where there’s no other evidence to support it = Turnball direction MUST be given

b) Poor/deficient (e.g. fleeting glimpse) - withdraw from jury and direct acquittal (unless more evi to support correctness of ID evidence

  • D cannot be properly convicted on qualified ID evidence alone (must be SURE) but can be supported by reliable evi (bad character, silence, self-incrimination, mutually supportive ID)
30
Q

When can D submit ‘no case to answer’?

A

After P have closed case, D may submit that evidence does not disclose a case to answer in re: of any / all the counts on the indictment

31
Q

What’s the test for no case to answer? (Galbraith)

A

TEST: whether P evidence is such that, taken at its highest, a jury properly directed cannot properly convict on it

32
Q

Under the Galbraith (when submitting a no case to answer) what are the 2 limbs to be considered by the judge?

A

1) No evidence that the crime alleged has been committed by D

  • no direct evidence to an element and inferences P asks the court to draw are based on circumstantial evi that no jury could properly drawn on

2) ) Some evidence, but of tenuous character (e.g. inherently weak/vague, or inconsistent w/ other evidence)

  • judge to assess whether evidence too inherently weak/ vague for any sensible person to rely on it

NB:

  • Where P evidence strength/weakness depends on differing views as to credibility of a W = leave to jury
  • Court should not consider issues of credibility / reliability except in the clearest cases