|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> K v Director of Public Prosecutions  EWHC 351 (Admin) (11 February 2003)
Cite as:  EWHC 351 (Admin)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
(Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division)
MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES
|DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS||(DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR J AGEROS appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Tuesday, 11th February 2003
Crown Copyright ©
"In a case which involves disputed identification evidence and where the identity of the suspect is known to the police and he is available the following identification procedures may be used".
"Whenever a suspect disputes an identification made or purported to have been made by a witness, an identification procedure shall be held unless paragraph D.2.15 applies".
"An identification procedure need not be held if in all the circumstances it would serve no useful purpose in proving or disproving whether the suspect was involved in committing the offence".
"A police officer may take a witness to a particular neighbourhood or place to see whether he can identify the person whom he said he saw on the relevant occasion. Before doing so, where practicable, a record shall be made of any description given by the witness of the suspect. Care should be taken not to direct the witness's attention to any individual".
"The aggrieved had seen the appellant in conditions of good street lighting and heard him speak for an appreciable time at close distance at the scene of the robbery to enable him to identify the appellant both by sight and voice".
"The aggrieved's evidence was evidence of his recognition on the night of the offence and was not influenced by seeing the appellant at a previous aborted hearing during the course of which he was asked to effect a dock identification nor was there anything arising from the taking of a further statement from the aggrieved subsequent to that hearing and prior to the instant hearing that in any way affected his identification evidence".
"I was of the opinion that the issue in the case was one of participation rather than identification. At no time in his interview or in his evidence did the appellant do other than accept that he was present at the time and place of the robbery. It was the level of his participation that he denied".
"Care should be taken not to direct the witness's attention to any individual".
". . . although not to be construed to cover every conceivable situation, imposed a mandatory obligation on police officers that, except in limited, specified circumstances, an identification parade was to be held whenever the suspect disputed an identification and he consented to the parade being held; that such a duty was not displaced where there had previously been a full and complete or unequivocal identification by the relevant witness; and that, accordingly, there had been a breach of paragraph [D]2.3".