Identification after Parade had Ended Life Imprisonment for Short Period of False Imprisonment
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300619 |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Identification
after
Parade
had Ended Life Imprisonment
make the primary function possible. The one is therefore as necessary as
the other. Potter 11 drew attention to the fact that, if the appellant'S
argument were accepted, it would mean that, even
if
he had been a
cleaner employed by the Post Office, he would
not
be within s 57. That
would certainly have defeated the purpose of the Act.
Identification after Parade
had
Ended
Life Imprisonment
for Short Period of False Imprisonment
RvWilloughby [1999] 2 Cr App R 82
The appeal against conviction in this case was heard by
one
division of
the Court of Appeal, which adjourned the final decision (on a further
ground of appeal which had been taken) to
another
division of the
court, which was left to deal also with the appeal against sentence. By
the time the case reached the second hearing, the court
had
already
dismissed the appeal against conviction on
what
had been the major
issue. A young
woman
student was living in a residential block at a
university
when
she was attacked in the bathroom by a stranger,
who
locked
her
in a cubicle, assaulted
her
and
forced
her
to have oral sex
with
him. The appellant,
who
was a mature student in the university,
was convicted of false imprisonment, indecent assault,
and
assault
occasioning actual bodily harm. On conviction, he was, for
the
false
imprisonment, sentenced to life imprisonment, with aperiod of six-and-
a-half years' imprisonment specified as the period to be served for the
purpose of the CriminalJustice Act 1991, with concurrent determinate
terms for
the
other
offences.
THE
APPEAL
AGAINST
CONVICTION
At
the
identification parade held almost immediately after
the
appel-
lant's arrest, the appellant was
number
3 on the line. The first witness
said that she thought the assailant was
number
2. The complainant said,
'It
is
number
4, I think.
It
might be
number
3'. She returned to the
witness waiting room
and
was there with the first witness, until a police
officer took
her
away. The third witness said, 'I've got an idea,
but
I'm
not
100,% sure.
It
might be
number
3'. That witness had
then
joined the
first in
the
waiting room. Shortly afterwards,
both
the complainant
and.
the
third witness made statements that they were
'now'
sure that it was
number
3 (the appellant). Indeed, the complainant,
who
had been very
distressed during the whole proceedings, made
two
statements after the
parade had been abandoned and, as she said, after she had 'calmed
down', in
both
of which she asserted that she was
then
'sure' and
'positive' that
number
3 was
her
attacker. The third witness in
her
post-
parade statement said that by then she was ' 1
00%
sure that it was
number
3'.
D 16 Annex A of Code 0 issued
under
the Police
and
Criminal
Evidence Act 1984
(PACE)
states
that
if
awitness makes an identifica-
tion after aparade has ended he (and,
if
present, his solicitor, interpreter
549
To continue reading
Request your trial