Video Identification under PACE Code D: R v Marcus
| Date | 01 July 2005 |
| Author | Chris Taylor |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijep.2005.9.3.204 |
| Published date | 01 July 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
20 4 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF
CASE NOTES
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF
T
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF (2005) 9 E&P 204–210
Video identification under PACE Code D:
R
v
Marcus
By Chris Taylor
*
Leeds Metropolitan University
he case of R v Marcus1 illustrates the potential difficulty of trying to conduct
a valid identification procedure in accordance with Code D of the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 where the police experience difficulty
finding the required number of volunteers who are sufficiently similar in appearance
to the accused.
In Marcus the police attempted to adapt the procedure for video identification, provided
by Code D in order to increase the likelihood of a positive identification of the accused.
However, this was conducted in a manner which the Court of Appeal found to be
contrary to both the terms and the spirit of the provisions. The police had deliberately
acted to undermine the safeguards within the identification procedure, to the extent
that even the officer supervising the process had acknowledged that the result was
blatantly unfair to the appellant. For this reason, those convictions which had
involved the appellant’s identification by means of this procedure could not be upheld.
The facts
The appellant was convicted on seven counts of robbery and one of false
imprisonment. The robberies were all committed at knifepoint and most occurred
at cash machines in the Birmingham area between August and November 2002. The
charge of false imprisonment related to the unlawful detention of one of the victims
in his own car.
* Email: C.W.Taylor@leedsmet.ac.uk.
1 [2004] EWCA Crim 3387.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
To continue reading
Request your trial