QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE GIBBS
|R AND OTHERS||(CLAIMANT)|
|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 T CONCANNON (instructed by CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Crown Copyright ©
Tuesday, 2nd December 2003
"Circumstances in which an identification procedure must be held
(i) a witness has identified a suspect or purported to have identified them prior to any identification procedure set out in paragraphs 3.5 to 3.10 having been held; or
(ii) there is a witness available, who expresses an ability to identify the suspect, or where there is a reasonable chance of the witness being able to do so, and they have not been given an opportunity to identify the suspect in any of the procedures set out in paragraphs 3.5 to 3.10 and,
the suspect disputes being the person the witness claims to have seen, an identification procedure shall be held unless it is not practicable or it would serve no useful purpose in proving or disproving whether the suspect was involved in committing the offence. For example, when it is not disputed that the suspect is already well known to the witness who claims to have seen them commit the crime.
3.13 Such a procedure may also be held if the officer in charge of the investigation considers it would be useful."
"Having regard to all the circumstances [of the case], including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it."
"At the end of the case I was asked to determine that I was not sure of the guilt of the Appellants in respect of each of the charges that they faced. The defence emphasised the absence of identification parades, the above mentioned discrepancy in relation to the evidence of B and because of the persuasive evidence that I have been given in respect of particular defendants. I gave myself the appropriate directions that I would have given to a jury. I considered the case against and for each defendant on each count separately and I gave careful consideration to the detriment to any defendant where an identification parade or parades had not been held. I was sure that the Appellants were guilty. I returned verdicts of guilty and accordingly after consideration of appropriate reports I sentenced them..."