||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 429 (Mar)
||Philip Head (instructed by Nelsons, Nottingham) for the appellant.
||Mark Hurd (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Leicester) for the respondent.
||27 March 2002
Criminal evidence - Identity - Visual identification - Police officer - Defendant disputing identification and requesting identity parade - Police failing to hold identity parade - Police officer making identification acquainted with defendant - Prosecution failing to take statement from visiting police officer present at time of visual identification - Whether provision of code of practice requiring identity parade applying where suspect had previously been positively identified - Whether evidence of police officer making identification to be excluded - Code of Practice for the Identification of Persons by Police Officers, para 2.3 - s 78.
A district judge had not been wrong to admit evidence of identification of the appellant by a police officer who had known him for three years despite no identification parade being held and the fact that no witness statement had been taken from a visiting police officer who was present at the time. It was settled law that the holding of an identity parade where the accused raised the issue of identity was not mandatory if the defendant was well known to the person identifying him and the appellant had not been at a disadvantage because the foreign police officer was not called, since the evidence of the identifying officer was highly probative.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary