Dock Identification: Compatibility with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
| Author | Andrew Roberts |
| Published date | 01 December 2005 |
| Date | 01 December 2005 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/jcla.2005.69.6.494 |
| Subject Matter | Privy Council |
Privy Council
Dock Identification: Compatibility with Article 6 of the
European Convention on Human Rights
Holland vHM Advocate [2005] UKPC D1
The appellant had been convicted, inter alia, of two counts of assault and
robbery and possession of a loaded air pistol without lawful authority or
reasonable excuse, each conviction arising from separate incidents. In
respect of the first count of robbery, the victim had been at home when
three men knocked at the door. One of the men had a firearm and
another produced a knife. The victim was forced into the house and
assaulted. During the course of the assault the assailants demanded
money and removed items of jewellery from the victim. When her son
returned home the men fled taking the jewellery with them. The second
count of robbery occurred at shop premises. On arriving at the premises
to open the shop, the manager noticed two men loitering outside.
Shortly after the manager entered the premises the two men forced
entry through the rear door. After threatening the manager with a gun
the intruders made off with cash, cigarettes and telephone cards. Several
days after these incidents the appellant had been arrested in possession
of an air pistol.
The victims of both the first and second robberies identified the
appellant from police photographs that were shown to them. The Pro-
curator Fiscal subsequently directed that an identification parade be
held. At that parade the first victim failed to identify the appellant,
choosing a stand-in, as did the victim of the second robbery. However,
the first victim’s son did identify the appellant. After the parade a police
officer informed the first victim that she had ‘not done too well’. The
appellant was subsequently indicted.
At trial the advocate depute intended to call the victims of the two
robberies and ask questions that were designed to see whether they
could identify the appellant, sitting in the dock, as one of the perpe-
trators of the robberies. The trial judge rejected defence counsel’s sub-
mission that reliance on such evidence was incompatible with the
appellant’s rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on
Human Rights. The victim of the first robbery gave evidence in which
she identified the appellant as the man who had had the gun during the
incident. When asked about events at the identification parade she
stated that she had been put-off by members of the parade who she
thought had been laughing at her. Consequently, she had picked out
someone who she was not sure was one of the culprits. However, in the
course of her testimony she claimed that the man she had identified in
court ‘was definitely in [her] house. Definitely’. She asserted that her
identification of the appellant in court was more likely to be accurate
than her attempted identification at the parade. Furthermore she re-
jected any suggestion that she might have been mistaken. The first
494
To continue reading
Request your trial