Identification Evidence: Duty to Conduct Identification Procedure
| Author | Andrew Roberts |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2006.70.3.197 |
| Published date | 01 June 2006 |
| Date | 01 June 2006 |
D. Ormerod and A. Roberts, ‘The Trouble with Teixeira: Developing a
Principled Approach to Entrapment’ (2002) 6 E & P 41).
Andrew Roberts
Identification Evidence: Duty to Conduct Identification
Procedure
R v Muhidinz [2005] EWCA Crim 2758
The appellant had been convicted of robbery. The complainant had been
approached by three men while walking along a London side-street at
approximately midnight. The men had been on the other side of the
road and had crossed to meet the complainant. One of these men, Ali,
had asked the complainant the time. The other two men stood closely
behind Ali, which gave the complainant the impression that he was
being threatened and, believing the men to armed, he handed them his
wallet containing £225. The complainant’s evidence was that one of the
men took the money and handed the wallet back to the complainant. As
the three men began to leave, the complainant flagged down a passing
police vehicle. He pointed out the three men who were making off. The
first of the group was approximately 30 feet away and the second was
attempting to bluff his way by walking, rather than running off. The
complainant stated that the three men were the only persons in the
vicinity and all three men took part in the robbery.
The appellant was one of those stopped by the police. At trial, the
appellant conceded that the only persons present in the street were the
complainant, two other men and himself. The Crown’s case was that the
complainant stated that he was surrounded by three men. There were
only three men and the complainant in the vicinity. This was not a case
involving disputed identification as the appellant had admitted his pres-
ence at the scene; the sole issue for the jury was whether or not he had
participated in the robbery. Counsel for the appellant submitted that it
was a case involving disputed identification and that as an identification
parade had not been conducted there was insufficient evidence to
identify him as one of those who took part.
The trial judge formed the view that this was not an identity case.
Where known suspects such as the appellant and his co-accused ad-
mitted presence at the scene of a robbery, but denied criminal participa-
tion in it, they were not disputing identification and no further
identification procedure was either necessary or appropriate.
H
ELD
,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL
,this was an identification case. The
question was whether the appellant was one of at least three men whom
the complainant had said had confronted and attacked him. The appel-
lant’s case had been that he had been on the other side of the road. The
trial judge had erred in his conclusion that it was not an identification
case. The appellant’s admission that he was on the other side of the road
was not an admission that he was present at the scene of the crime. R v
Identification Evidence: Duty to Conduct Identification Procedure
197
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting