Identification Evidence: Defendants Well Known to Witness; Breach of Code D
| Published date | 01 June 2004 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.68.3.183.34449 |
| Date | 01 June 2004 |
| Subject Matter | High Court |
High Court
Identification Evidence: Defendants Well Known to
Witness; Breach of Code D
R and Others vDPP [2003] EWHC Admin 3074
The two appellants had been convicted of violent disorder and unlawful
wounding by a district judge in the South and South East Hampshire
Youth Court. The prosecution case was that the two were members of a
group of 20 youths who had set upon a man after he approached them
in the street to complain about their conduct.
The prosecution relied on the identification evidence provided by B,
a 14-year-old boy, who claimed to know the two appellants ‘really well’.
Following their arrest the appellants made it clear that the identification
or recognition by B was disputed. Furthermore, they indicated that they
were willing to cooperate in a video identification involving B and any
other potential identification witnesses.
The relevant provision of PACE, Code D provides:
3.12 Whenever:
(i) a witness has identified a suspect or purported to have identified
them prior to any identification procedure set out in paragraphs 3.5
to 3.10 having been held; or
(ii) there is a witness available, who expresses an ability to identify the
suspect, or where there is a reasonable chance of the witness being
able to do so, and they have not been given an opportunity to
identify the suspect in any of the procedures set out in paragraphs
3.5 to 3.10,
and the suspect disputes being the person the witness claims to have seen,
an identification procedure shall be held unless it is not practicable or it
would serve no useful purpose in proving or disproving whether the
suspect was involved in committing the offence. For example, when it is
not disputed that the suspect is already well known to the witness who
claims to have seen them commit the crime.’
Preliminary arrangements were made for such a procedure to be carried
out and video footage of one of the appellants was obtained for these
purposes. Although arrangements were made shortly before the date set
for trial to obtain footage of the other appellant, the appointment had to
be cancelled due to the illness of a police officer. In addition to B, there
were three other eyewitnesses who could have been invited to take part
in video identifications. However, no such procedure was held; the
prosecution having taken the view that the priority was to proceed to
trial promptly. The district judge found that the failure to carry out the
video identifications amounted to a breach of the PACE Codes of Prac-
tice, though he declined to exercise his exclusionary discretion under s.
78 in respect of the identification evidence given by B.
The grounds of appeal by way of case stated were that:
183
To continue reading
Request your trial