Logo ©1994-2007 Kevin Boone
My professional interests
Computing
Law
Education
Science and research

My leisure interests
Martial arts
Heritage railways
Garden railways
Motorcycles
DIY

Downloads
Linux downloads
Windows downloads
Java downloads
Perl downloads
Home automation downloads

About me
Home & family
My CV

Site info
Contact the author
Download policy
Keyword index

  Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary

Identification parade

Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006

One of the most troublesome areas in the law of evidence is that of identification. A defendant will very frequently not contest that an offence was committed, but deny that he was the person who committed it. If he does, then the prosecution will have to lead evidence that identifies him as the perpetrator. Most often, this evidence is an eye-witness account. However, such accounts are notoriously unreliable (see TurnbullDirection).

PACE Code of Practice D states that it is desirable to hold an identification parade if the witness has already given sufficient information for a tentative indentification to be made. However, in practice the witness may be able to recongize the perpetrator, but not describe him well enough for the police to determine who he is. In such a case, the code Code allows the police to take the witness to the place where she saw the perpetrator, or where he is likely to be, so that she can pick him out. However, D3.2(a) indicates that, where practical, the police should record a description before undertaking this exercise. The reason for this is that witnesses usually want to be helpful, and there is a strong compulsion to pick somebody, so it is useful to have an alternative description as a comparison.

In RVKelly1998, the CourtOfAppeal held that breaches of Code D rendered identification evidence less reliable, and this might engage s.78 of PACE, givin the court a discretion to exclude the evidence. However, not all breaches of Code D would lead to exclusion. Where the language of the Code is mandatory, rather than expressed in terms of `reasonable practicability', then non-compliance very like will lead to exclusion (RVForbes2001).

EvidenceLaw

Law glossary index

   
Search

WebThis site

Shameless plug

By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK

Editorial
So you want to be a university lecturer? Read this first!

Speak like your boss: new developments in managerese

Computing features
File handling in the Linux kernel: an in-depth look at how Linux handles files, filesystems, and file I/O

All sorts of Linux stuff

Confused about CLASSPATH? answers are here

First steps in EJB using jBoss (recently revised for jBoss 3.2)