O GoConqr está de visual novo! Conte para nós o que você achou.

Registre-se grátis

Flashcards

ID Evidence

jessie-lou Inglês 48 flashcards

Flashcards do conjunto (48)

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 3R v forbesDeals with Popat problem. HoL terms of 3.12 mandatory, no harm will come from subsequent testing procedure.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 7Para 3.34- 3.37Record circumstances in which images were viewed in case D later wants to challenge reliability or accuracy
  8. 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.
  9. 9R v TurnbullWithdrawal of a case that depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of ID evidence which D alleges to be mistaken
  10. 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
  11. 11S.78 (1) pacediscretionary provision for trial judge: whether the admission of the evidence would have an adverse effect on fairness of proceedings.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 15R v MossOff duty police officer case. held- evidence properly admitted, PO described what made him ID, warning given to jury about dangers.
  16. 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
  17. 17s.120 (1) (4) (5) Criminal Justice ActDock ID may be used in exceptional cases
  18. 18s.120 (1) (4) (5) Criminal Justice ActDock ID may be used in exceptional cases
  19. 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/.
  20. 20barnes v Chief Constable of DurhamDock ID permissible in driving cases in mags, police ID person as driver of car. practicalities.
  21. 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.
  22. 22Form of Turnbull warningto exercise real caution, why and miscarriages of justice, particular circumstances in which the ID took place.
  23. 23Recognition CasesWarning still required, must be reminded mistakes still occur when recognising close friends/ relatives
  24. 24ID evidence of good qualityCan be left to jury, even if case rests solely or substantially on it, providing special Turnbull warning given
  25. 25Poor ID evidenceCase should be withdrawn unless corroborating evidence independent of EW evidence.
  26. 26R v SadlerV's blood on D's clothing, poor quality ID, capable of corroborating
  27. 27R on the Application of Pierre Wellington v DPPD used same false name as previously, capable of corroborating fleeting glance ID.
  28. 28False accusations.Technically no warning needed if alleging that EW is lying rather than mistaken, but see R v Shand
  29. 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.
  30. 30R v SlaterTurnbull warning required where presence at scene admitted but role disputed, may have mistaken suspect A for B.
  31. 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.
  32. 32Reliability issuespotential to be unreliable, mistaken ID can lead to miscarriages of Justice
  33. 33Flawed visual perceptionEg poor eyesight, lighting conditions, fleeting glance situations
  34. 34Flawed Mental RecallWhen describing features to police, may be hard to recall
  35. 35Psychological FactorsDifferences between what the eye sees and what the mind sees. Knife point fixation- weapon focus by Loftus
  36. 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.
  37. 37Code D PACEPre trial protection with procedures for gathering ID evidence
  38. 38R v TurnbullHalting a case that rests wholly or substantially on ID evidence that D alledges to be mistaken
  39. 39s.78(1) PACEDiscretionary exclussion of evidence where it is potentially unreliable
  40. 40Turnbull Warning.Where case isn't halted, warning given to jury to treat evidence with caution
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 43Para 3.4-Video ID, ID parade, Group ID. Known to police means have enough info to justify arresting that person.
  44. 44Video ID- Annex Apresumed, most practical, cheapest,
  45. 45ConfrontationTO be used as a measure of last resort, much less reliable, don't have benefit of comparing with other peoplel
  46. 46Para 3.12If S refuses to take part, can organise video ID using images already in possession/ covert filming in police station.
  47. 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
  48. 483.23 Code Dconfrontation may be organised where suspect refusing to take part

Informações

Descrição
FlashCards sobre ID Evidence, criado por jessie-lou em 17-05-2013.
Criado por
jessie-lou
Visualizações
58
Avaliação

Fale Conosco

Sobre o que é sua mensagem?

O que você acha do novo visual?

Você gostou?