Visual Identification Evidence in UK Law

It imposes no rigid pattern, establishes no catechism, which a Judge in his summing-up must answer if a verdict of guilty is to stand. The principle is the special need for caution when the issue turns on evidence of visual identification: the practice has to be a careful summing-up, which not only contains a warning but also exposes to the jury the weaknesses and dangers of identification evidence both in general and in the circumstances of the particular case.

The new information in relation to the messages from Gary Rees raises the possibility of greater collusion (in the sense of discussion) between the witnesses than the defence team knew at the time. It also potentially puts paid to Miss Henville's assertion that from the outset that there were rumours that Sam Hallam was involved.

Such evidence can bring about miscarriages of Justice and has done so in a few cases in recent years. In our judgment the danger of miscarriages of justice occurring can be much reduced if trial Judges sum up to juries in the way indicated in this judgment.

First, whenever the case against an accused depends wholely or substantially on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which the defence alleges to be mistaken, the Judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identification or identifications.

In our judgment when the quality is good as for example when the identification is made after a long period of observation, or in satisfactory conditions by a relative, a neighbour, a close friend, a workmate and the like, the jury can safely be left to assess the value of the identifying evidence even though there is no other evidence to support it: provided always, however, that an adequate warning has been given about the special need for caution.

When, in the judgment of the trial Judge, the quality of the identifying evidence is poor, as for example when it depends solely on a fleeting glance or on a longer observation made in difficult conditions, the situation is very different. The Judge should then withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence which goes to support the correctness of the identification.

This Court has said in the recent past that the mere fact that in a particular case, the Jury get to know wrongly that a man has a criminal record, does not always lead to a conviction being quashed. This Court does not resile in any way from that proposition. But we are dealing in this case with a conviction which is founded on visual identification, unsupported by any corroborative evidence, as lawyers understand that term.