R v Caldwell ; R v Dixon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1993 |
| Date | 25 May 1993 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Simon Brown, Mr Justice Henry and Mr Justice Potts
Criminal evidence - admissibility - recognition from video tape
Evidence of a video tape recording of a robbery and evidence from police officers, who had viewed the video in a police station, of the purported recognition of suspects, was prima facie admissible, subject to the discretion of the judge to exclude it.
However, it was desirable that procedures should be instituted for regulating video showings of incidents recorded by video cameras, where there already existed known suspects.
The Court of Appeal so stated in a reserved judgment when dismissing the appeals of Paul Caldwell and Terence Dixon against their convictions on February 11, 1992 in Warrington Crown Court (Judge Phillips and a jury) of robbery.
Mr Richard J Pratt, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for Caldwell; Mr Michael Pickavance, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for Dixon; Mr Michael Farmer for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN, giving the judgment of the court, said that it was contended that evidence of the purported recognition by police officers of the appellants as the robbers of a general store and off-licence ought not to have been admitted, its prejudicial effect outweighing its probative value.
In their Lordships' view the trial judge had taken all the proper considerations into account and was entitled to admit the evidence.
Commenting upon such video-based recognition evidence their Lordships said that some analogy existed between showing videos and showing photographs, as indeed it did between video showing and identification parades. How close the analogy was would depend upon the circumstances.
Ordinarily, recognition evidence was quite different from identification evidence. Nevertheless some at least of the considerations underlying the safeguards built into the regulatory procedures laid down for identification parades and the showing of photographs came into play too with regard to the showing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2002)
...R 220 - R v Fowden & White [1982] CLR 588 - Kajala v Noble (1982) 75 Cr App R 149 - R v Grimer [1982] CLR 674 - R v Caldwell & Dixon (1994) 99 Cr App R 73 - R v Blenkinsop [1995] 1 Cr App R 7 - R v Stockwell (1993) 97 Cr App R 260 - R v Clarke [1995] 2 Cr App R 425 - R v Hookway [1999] CLR ......
-
Taaj Oniel Muhammad v The King
...and White [1982] Crim L. R. 588, Kajala v Noble (1982) 75 Cr App R 149, R v Grimer [1982] Crim L R 674, R v Caldwell and Dixon (1994) 99 Cr App R 73 and R v Blenkinsop [1995] 1 Cr App R 7; and this might be so even if the photographic image was no longer available for the jury: Taylor v C......
-
R v EF
...he can give evidence of this ( Fowden [1982] Crim LR 588, Kajala v Noble (1982) 75 Cr App R 149, Grimer [1982] Crim LR 674, Caldwell (1994) 99 Cr App R 73 and Blenkinsop [1995] 1 Cr App R 7); and this may be so even if the photographic image is no longer available for the jury ( Taylor v ......
-
Hksar v Asif Ahfaq Mehmood And Others
...v Fowden and White [1982] Crim LR 588, Kajala v Noble (1982) 75 Cr App R 149, R v Grimer [1982] Crim LR 674, R v Caldwell and Dixon (1993) 99 Cr App R 73, and R v Blenkinsop (1995) 1 Cr App R 7); and this may be so even if the photographic image is no longer available (Taylor v Chief Consta......