Exemption of the Duty to Hold an Identification Parade
| Author | F. G. Davies |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300536 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Exemption
of the Duty to
Hold
an
Identification
Parade
which have questioned the
need
for an identification parade
where
the
suspect is already
known
to the police: R v
Roderick
Garfield
Bell [1998]
Crim LR 879. See
the
commentary to R v
Forbes
below.
Exemption of the Duty to Hold an Identification Parade
R v
Forbes
[1999] All ER 457
The appellant was convicted of attempted robbery. In the early evening
of 2 May 1998 the complainant
and
a friend
went
into Ilford to obtain
some money from a cashpoint machine at a Building Society. The friend
drove. The complainant was dropped off in Chadwick Road, he walked
to the cashpoint machine in the High Street
and
withdrew £10. As he
was walking away a
man
confronted him. The
man
blocked his
path
and
asked for £10. The complainant,
who
had
never
seen this
man
before,
refused. After a short time the
man
became agitated. The complainant
ran away
and
the
man
followed. He was heard to shout 'Oi'
and
then
'Give me £10 or I'll cut you up'. By this time there was only 30 em
between
them. The complainant's evidence was that he saw
what
he
thought
to be
the
handle of a knife tucked into his jeans. It looked like
aStanley knife. Further threats were offered. The complainant
ran
towards where his friend was parked. He found his friend
and
got into
his car. As he was getting into the car, he saw the
man
turning into the
road
where
the
car was parked. His friend drove off. Shortly after they
drove off the complainant said he saw the same
man
again, walking on
the pavement with two or three
other
youths. As he drove past they
had
eye contact with him; the
man
spat towards the car,
but
nothing was
said. The complainant called the police
on
his friend's mobile telephone.
After about four minutes the complainant
met
some police officers in a
car park. He got into their car
and
drove
around
the vicinity hoping to
find
the
man
who
had
tried to rob him. He identified the appellant to the
police about six to eight minutes after the police first arrived at
the
scene. The police arrested him
and
did
not
hold an identification parade.
The appellant gave evidence on his
own
behalf. He claimed that
one
of
the arresting officers
had
flung him to the ground
and
kicked him. To the
jury
the defendant denied the offence saying 'No way, I would
never
lower my standards
and
do that, it's
not
with me'. The trial judge ruled
that the appellant
had
put
his character in issue
under
s 1(f)(ii) of the
not
commit an
offence of the type alleged (assertion of good character); in addition he
had
attacked the character of one of
the
arresting police officers. She
ruled
that
it could be
put
to
the
appellant that he
had
previous convlc-
tions for offences involving dishonesty. Following the ruling, counsel for
the appellant alluded to the possibility that
her
client might decline to
answer
any
questions about his previous convictions. Counsel intimated
that
the
appellant might also refuse to go back into the witness box.
Faced with that, the judge gave a further ruling, to the effect
that
if the
appellant refused to
return
to the witness box the jury might in any.
461
To continue reading
Request your trial