Identification Officers' Guide to Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 April 1993 |
| Author | Rob R. Jerrard |
| Published date | 01 April 1993 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X9306600207 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
ROB R. JERRARD LL.B., LL.M., (London)
IDENTIFICATION OFFICERS'
GUIDE TO RECENT JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
TheCodesofPracticerequirethatthefirstconsiderationoftheidentification
officer, whomust be a uniformed inspector,is to conduct an identification
parade if the suspect "asks for one and it is practicable to bold one." A
parade must also be held "if the officer in cbarge of the investigation
considers that it wouldbe useful, and the suspect consents". Recent cases
show
bow,all toooften,
identification
officers
arepersuadedor pressurized
into forging abead towards a group identification or confrontation.
Any breacb of the Code's provisions is likely to bave important
evidential consequences at a trial. The courts have
shown
themselves
willing to exclude improperlyobtained identificationevidence by theuse
of s.78Police andCriminal EvidenceAct 1984,(PACE). This is notto say
that all evidenceof identification bas to be obtained asa result of a formal
parade or, necessarily, in accordance witb Code Dsince para. 2.17
concerns cases wbere the identity of tbe suspect is not known.
Recognition of Identification?
In R. v. Long [1991] Crim. L.R. 453, police officers bad taken the
registration number of a motor car which tbey bad previouslycbased for
an offence of reckless driving (now dangerous driving again, s.2 Road
Traffic Act 1991). The appellant subsequentlyattended the police station
to report his car as being stolen. Wbile be was at tbecounter, the officers
cameintothestationand recognizedbimasbeingthedriverofthecar tbey
badcbased. This ispure recognition anddid notjustify the evidencebeing
excluded under s.78. However, the courts bave drawn a fine line on
recognition and the practicabilityto bold a parade, as can be seen by the
cases.
InR. v.
Samms
[1991]Crim. L.R. 197,officerswitnessedan attempted
theftandcirculatedthe descriptionofthesuspectsinvolved. Thedefendants
were arrested by otherofficers and then seen by the observing officers in
thestation wbilstbeingbooked in. Thiswaseffectivelya confrontationin
circumstanceswbere
it
badnot been sbownimpracticabletobolda parade
or group identification,and led to the evidenceof the identificationbeing
excluded.
InR. v.Brown [1991] Crim. L.R. 368, the victim was robbed by a man
wbomshesawinlimited streetligbting only for thelast few secondsoftbe
assault. Some ten minutes later sbe made a positive identification of tne
robber wbo was walkingin the street. The court stated that Code D, para.
2.1ismandatory,failureto bolda parade wben the defendant requests one
is a breacb of Code D.
Aplil1993
The Police Journal 147
To continue reading
Request your trial