Fichas
ID Evidence
Fichas del conjunto (48)
- 1Para 3.2if not enough info for suspect to be known, can drive eyewitness around, once make positive ID become known under 3.4 If S disputes correctness, subsequent testing procedure s.12
- 2R v Popat (The popat problem)Where EW pointed out S in street, and this was fully satisfactory or complete, was left for individual PO's as to whether to organise subsequent ID.
- 3R v forbesDeals with Popat problem. HoL terms of 3.12 mandatory, no harm will come from subsequent testing procedure.
- 4Para 3.3Where police recieve report on crime, can show photos to EW of known local criminals. Then suspect becomes known (3.4), if disputed 3.12 triggered.
- 5Para 3.28Police able to shown public or PO's films etc for purpose of ID'ing suspect. If person disputes, not obligated to hold ID procedure. Here, concern is recognition, not recollection.
- 6Guidance Notes 3AA on para 3.28 and 3.12Makes clear that different situation, 3.12 should not be used to test whether witness can recognise someone they know
- 7Para 3.34- 3.37Record circumstances in which images were viewed in case D later wants to challenge reliability or accuracy
- 8Para 3.36 D & Kparticulary important where PO viewing footage with a view to recognised. Note who viewing it with, what caused to recognise, expressions of doubt etc.
- 9R v TurnbullWithdrawal of a case that depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of ID evidence which D alleges to be mistaken
- 10Requirements for withdrawal pursuant to Turnbull1- where case rests wholly/ substantially on Id Evidence 2- that D says is mistaken 3- of poor quality 4- uncorroborated by independent evidence
- 11S.78 (1) pacediscretionary provision for trial judge: whether the admission of the evidence would have an adverse effect on fairness of proceedings.
- 12R v FinleyD participated in ID parade, alleged ID evidence unsafe as dangers of contamination of evidence and differed in appearance from others. Held- shouldn't have been put to jury.
- 13R v NagahQuasi confrontation, V waiting in police car outside station. CofA- complete flouting Code D, deprived of protections, shouldn't have been put to jury
- 14R v PennyPolice held group ID even though practicable to hold parade. CofA- reliable to admit, yielded strong evidence, supporting evidence also strong, consent had been obtained.
- 15R v MossOff duty police officer case. held- evidence properly admitted, PO described what made him ID, warning given to jury about dangers.
- 16R v ForbesIf evidence not excluded under s.78 where Code D broken, judge should draw juries attention to such, consider whether it may affect the safety of the evidence
- 17s.120 (1) (4) (5) Criminal Justice ActDock ID may be used in exceptional cases
- 18s.120 (1) (4) (5) Criminal Justice ActDock ID may be used in exceptional cases
- 19R v TidoDiscretionary matter for judge to allow dock ID, must make clear to jury dangers associated with this procedure as a means of checking dock ID/.
- 20barnes v Chief Constable of DurhamDock ID permissible in driving cases in mags, police ID person as driver of car. practicalities.
- 21Turnbull WarningGuidance about how jury should be directed about disputed ID evidence that hasn't been excluded, where case rests substantially on ID evidence and which D alleges to be mistaken.
- 22Form of Turnbull warningto exercise real caution, why and miscarriages of justice, particular circumstances in which the ID took place.
- 23Recognition CasesWarning still required, must be reminded mistakes still occur when recognising close friends/ relatives
- 24ID evidence of good qualityCan be left to jury, even if case rests solely or substantially on it, providing special Turnbull warning given
- 25Poor ID evidenceCase should be withdrawn unless corroborating evidence independent of EW evidence.
- 26R v SadlerV's blood on D's clothing, poor quality ID, capable of corroborating
- 27R on the Application of Pierre Wellington v DPPD used same false name as previously, capable of corroborating fleeting glance ID.
- 28False accusations.Technically no warning needed if alleging that EW is lying rather than mistaken, but see R v Shand
- 29R v ShandWhere alleging EW lying not mistaken, some form of warning still desirable, even if jury says not lying, still need to be satisfied no possibility of W being mistaken.
- 30R v SlaterTurnbull warning required where presence at scene admitted but role disputed, may have mistaken suspect A for B.
- 31Failure to follow guidelineslikely to result in quashed convictions due to the dangers associated with ID evidence, UNLESS clear that absence of warning would have made no different.
- 32Reliability issuespotential to be unreliable, mistaken ID can lead to miscarriages of Justice
- 33Flawed visual perceptionEg poor eyesight, lighting conditions, fleeting glance situations
- 34Flawed Mental RecallWhen describing features to police, may be hard to recall
- 35Psychological FactorsDifferences between what the eye sees and what the mind sees. Knife point fixation- weapon focus by Loftus
- 36The Devlin Reportpotential for miscarriages of justice, estimated that in 30 year period, could have been as many as 125 cases hinging on unsafe ID evidence.
- 37Code D PACEPre trial protection with procedures for gathering ID evidence
- 38R v TurnbullHalting a case that rests wholly or substantially on ID evidence that D alledges to be mistaken
- 39s.78(1) PACEDiscretionary exclussion of evidence where it is potentially unreliable
- 40Turnbull Warning.Where case isn't halted, warning given to jury to treat evidence with caution
- 41Para 1.2 code DTesting of ID evidence will require D to take place in ID procedure, aim to detect whether eyewitnesses ID was flawed in the circumstances.
- 42Para 3.12 and 3.13 Code Dshould be held where suspect disputes correctness of ID procedure. won't be held where serves no practical purpose, eg if eyewitness and D know each other well.
- 43Para 3.4-Video ID, ID parade, Group ID. Known to police means have enough info to justify arresting that person.
- 44Video ID- Annex Apresumed, most practical, cheapest,
- 45ConfrontationTO be used as a measure of last resort, much less reliable, don't have benefit of comparing with other peoplel
- 46Para 3.12If S refuses to take part, can organise video ID using images already in possession/ covert filming in police station.
- 47R v KennedyD filmed walking down passage in police station, other images then made of those of similar appearance. CofA held acceptable to do this, shown by 3.21
- 483.23 Code Dconfrontation may be organised where suspect refusing to take part
Información
- Descripción
- Fichas sobre ID Evidence, creado por jessie-lou el 17/05/2013.
- Creado por
- jessie-lou
- Visitas
- 58
- Valoración