REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
| Published date | 01 November 1976 |
| Date | 01 November 1976 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1976.tb01481.x |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
REPORT
OF
THE
DEPARTMENTAL
OMMIlTEE ON
EVIDENCE
OF
IDENTIFICATION
IN
CRIMINAL
CASES
1.
Introduction
The subject of evidence of identity in criminal
cases
has
recently
undergone much public scrutiny due to the
cases
of
Peter
Hain.
George Davis and Patrick Meehan
I;
all
of
whom were acquitted or
released from prison after
serious
doubt had been cast upon the
correctness
of
evidence identifying them
as
the perpetrators of crimes
with which they were variously charged. The available statistics do
not suggest that there
are
large numbers of similar cases? but with a
view to reducing their number
as
far
as
possible, a Departmental
Committee was set up
"
To
review. in the light of the wrongful convictions of Mr.
Luke
Dougherty and Mr.
Laszlo
Virag
. .
.
all aspects
of
the law and
procedure relating to evidence of identification in criminal cases."
The Committee interpreted these terms
of
reference as requiring
a detailed review
of
the cases
of
Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Virag: both
of whom were victims
of
mistaken evidence of identity, and this is
undertaken in the first part of the Report.' Several important points
emerging from these studies provide the basis for the Committee's
examination of the existing law and procedure which occupies the
remainder of the Report.
The first
is
that evidence
of
identification-which in the context
of the Report
means
rmgnition6-is essentially unreliable
for
a
variety
of
reasons.e Some
of
these reasons
are
subjective to the
witness, such as his individual powers
of
observation, whilst
others
are objective, in that there are often no external factors by which
the evidence
can
be
tested. Indeed,
the
manner of an honestly
mistaken witness may be sufficient to convince a
jury
of
the truth of
his evidence.'
Secondly, the interests
of
the accused have to be balanced against
those
of
the
proper administration
of
justice, including the efficient
investigation
of
offences8; and thirdly, there is little control over
disobedience to the present
rules
governing investigations before trial.
2.
Investigation
of
oflences
threeareas:
The Committee subdivides pre-trial identification of suspects into
1
The Times,
April 10, May 12 and
20,
1976.
*
Report
of
the Departmental Committee
on
Evidence
of
Identification in Criminal
3
Report,
para. 1.1.
4
Ibid.
Chaps.
2
and
3.
5
Ibid.
para. 4.7-10.
6
Ibld.
paras. 4.12-21;
5.8.
Ibid.
para. 4.25.
LI
e.g.
ibid.
paras.
5.13-15.
Cases
(hereinafter, cited as
Report),
Appendix
H,
Table
IV.
707
To continue reading
Request your trial