[LORD WIDGERY C.J] FACTS: Defendants: Raymond Turnbull & Camelo were convicted for committing burglary. - Appealed against the conviction on the ground that the verdict of the jury was unsatisfactory - Dispute as to the accuracy of the identification there is a possibility of a mistake because it was a fleeting glimpse. - Claimed that identification of Turnbull was by a single detective constable who knew him previously, who was in a moving car looking across a road at night and who caught a glimpse of him as he momentarily turned his head. Defendant: Whitby robbery - Appealed against the conviction - Contended that the identification of him was unsatisfactory becasue, of the three witnesses who identified him at the identification parade had originally told the police that he could not describe or assess his age, but had named the defendant before the parade. The second witness had seen the robber alleged to be the df only from the rear and the third witness had in his original statement given a description of a man which in no way fitted the defendant. Defendant: Robert unlawful wounding. - The only evidence against him was the identification of two witnesses made after the lapse of four and a half months. They had given descriptions which were inconsistent with the defendants descriptions - The third witness had failed to pick out the defendant. GUIDELINES 1) The need for the judge to warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identififcation. - when the case against an accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which the defence alleges to be mistaken - Judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution. - Plus, he should also instruct them as to the reasons for the need of such a warning.
Should address the possibility that a mistaken witness can be a
convincing one and that even an honest witness can be a mistaken witness.
2) The judge should direct the jury to examine closely the
circumstances in which the identification by each witness came to be made. - The jury must examine various specific matters that may affect the strength or cogency of the evidence before them. - Examples: Amount of time the suspect was under observation by the witness. If it was only a fleeting glance as opposed to a few minutes, a judge is likely to be more skeptical of the evidence. Distance between the suspect and the witness; if there was a great distance between the eyewitness and the suspect or the crime scene, less weight is likely to be given. Visibility at the time the witness saw the suspect. The time of day and thus the level of darkness is of importance. If the sighting was at 3am in pitch darkness, there is likely to be more doubt over an accurate identification. Obstructions between the suspect and the witness. The court will take into account the general conditions that may have affected the sighting, for instance, whether it was an extremely foggy day, or the sighting took place in a crowded area, or there was a large obstacle obstructing the view. Knows the suspect or has seen him or her before. Here, the principle of recognition comes into play. Recognition bear a higher probative value than mere identification. Any particular reason for the witness to remember the suspect. It has to be taken into consideration whether the witness actually sees the face of the accused. Often a witness may only see the back of the accused in which case it will be easier for the accused to deny that it was actually him. Time lapse since the witness saw the suspect. The longer the time lapse, the lower probative value attached to the witness statement. Error or material discrepancy in the description given by the witness. The court will observe on how close the description given by the witness to the police actually matched the description of the accused. 3) Should remind the jury of any specific weaknesses which had appeared in the identification evidence.
All these matter relate to the quality and reliability of the
identififcation evidence. If the quality is good, and remains good at the close of the accuseds case, the danger of mistaken identification is lessened. But, the poorer the quality, the greater the danger. When the quality is good, the jury can be left to assess the value of the evidence eventhough there is no other evidence to support it. Provided always, adequate warning has been given about the special need for caution. However, where the quality is poor, the case should be withdrawn from the jury unless there is other evidence capable of supporting the correctness of the identification. Failure to direct such warning may result in the conviction being quashed as was held in the case of Jaafar bin Ali v. PP. The court held that: where evidence of identification represents any significant part of the proof of guilt in an offence, the judge must warn the jury of the dangers of convicting on such evidence where its reliability is disputed. The terms of the warning need not follow any particular formula, but it must be cogent and effective and must be appropriate to the circumstances of the particular case. The failure to warn of the dangers of identification evidence may lead to the ordering of new trials and the quashing of convictions.