Introduction
Identification procedures within police stations are essential components of criminal investigations, governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and its accompanying Code D. These procedures are designed to collect reliable identification evidence while safeguarding the rights of suspects. The key principles guiding these processes include fairness, reliability, consistency, transparency, and the right to legal representation. Strict adherence to these principles is essential to maintain the integrity of the identification process and ensure that evidence is admissible in court.
Legal Framework: PACE 1984 and Code D
The legal basis for police identification procedures is established by PACE 1984 and Code D, which outline the approved methods for identifying suspects in connection with offenses. These regulations aim to balance effective law enforcement with the protection of individual rights. Fundamental requirements include:
-
Fairness: Procedures must be conducted impartially, avoiding any actions that could prejudice the identification process.
-
Reliability: Methods employed should produce dependable and accurate evidence.
-
Consistency: Standardized procedures ensure uniform application across all cases, preventing discrepancies.
-
Transparency: Comprehensive records must be maintained to allow for thorough review and scrutiny of the procedures followed.
-
Right to Legal Representation: Suspects are entitled to have a legal adviser present during identification procedures to protect their interests.
Failure to meet these principles can result in the exclusion of identification evidence under section 78 of PACE 1984, emphasizing the importance of meticulous compliance.
Types of Identification Procedures
Code D specifies several identification procedures available when a suspect disputes being the person observed by a witness. The main types include video identification, identification parades, group identification, and confrontation.
Video Identification
Video identification is the most frequently used method, where witnesses view moving images of the suspect alongside images of others with similar appearances.
Features:
-
The procedure involves the suspect and at least eight other individuals recorded on video.
-
Images should reflect the suspect's appearance at the time of the alleged offense.
-
Distinctive features, such as scars or tattoos, must be concealed or replicated across all images to prevent undue emphasis.
Legal Considerations:
-
An independent identification officer, not involved in the investigation, conducts the procedure.
-
The suspect has the right to have their legal adviser present during the process.
Practical Example:
Consider a suspect with a noticeable facial scar. During the video identification, the identification officer must ensure that either all participants display a similar scar or that the scar is concealed on the suspect and all others. This measure prevents the witness from focusing on the distinctive feature rather than recalling the suspect's identity.
Identification Parades
An identification parade involves the physical lineup of the suspect with others of similar appearance, allowing the witness to identify the person they observed.
Features:
-
The lineup includes the suspect and a minimum of eight other individuals resembling the suspect in age, height, and general appearance.
-
Witnesses view the lineup individually to see if they can identify the suspect.
Legal Considerations:
-
The identification officer arranges and supervises the parade to ensure fairness.
-
The suspect can select their position in the lineup and may change positions between witness viewings.
Practical Example:
If a suspect consents to an identification parade, their legal adviser should verify that the other participants share similar characteristics. For instance, if the suspect is of a particular build and hairstyle, the others should match these attributes. This alignment ensures the suspect does not stand out, maintaining the procedure's integrity.
Group Identification
Group identification occurs when the suspect is observed among a group of people in a natural setting, such as a public place.
Features:
-
The suspect is placed in a public area among others who are not suspects.
-
The witness observes the group to see if they can identify the person they saw.
Legal Considerations:
-
The identification officer must control the conditions to prevent the suspect from being conspicuous.
-
Detailed documentation of the procedure is required to ensure transparency.
Practical Example:
Visualize arranging for the suspect to be present in a busy park where the witness can observe them among the crowd. The legal adviser should ensure the suspect does not wear distinctive clothing or exhibit behavior that makes them stand out, which could compromise the procedure's fairness.
Confrontation
Confrontation involves the witness directly viewing the suspect, either in person or through a one-way screen, and is used only when other identification methods are impracticable.
Features:
-
The suspect is presented to the witness without the presence of other individuals.
-
The witness is asked if the person is the one they observed during the incident.
Legal Considerations:
-
Due to its suggestive nature, confrontation is a last resort and must be justified.
-
Strict procedural guidelines must be followed to mitigate potential bias.
Practical Example:
If previous attempts at identification have failed or are not feasible, the police may resort to confrontation. The legal adviser must ensure that the procedure does not influence the witness's identification, such as by preventing any suggestive remarks or cues from officers present.
Role of Legal Advisers in Identification Procedures
Legal advisers are instrumental in protecting the suspect's rights throughout the identification process. Their responsibilities cover various stages:
Pre-Procedure Consultation
-
Explain Procedures: Articulate the identification methods and the suspect's rights in clear terms.
-
Assess Fairness: Identify any factors that might compromise the fairness of the procedure, such as unique physical features.
During the Procedure
-
Observe Compliance: Monitor the police to ensure alignment with Code D requirements.
-
Raise Objections: Immediately address any deviations from the prescribed procedures or incidents of unfairness.
-
Record Keeping: Maintain detailed notes on the conduct of the procedure, including any irregularities or objections raised.
Post-Procedure Actions
-
Debrief the Client: Review the outcome with the client, discussing any issues encountered.
-
Legal Strategy: Evaluate the need to challenge the identification evidence based on procedural flaws or unfairness.
Practical Scenario:
Consider a client participating in a video identification who wears distinctive eyewear. The legal adviser should ensure that either all participants wear similar eyewear or that it is removed for the procedure. If the police insist on proceeding without making appropriate adjustments, the adviser should formally object and document the incident, forming a potential basis for challenging the evidence.
Challenging Identification Evidence
Identification evidence can be fraught with inaccuracies, and legal advisers must be adept at challenging such evidence to protect their clients.
The Turnbull Guidelines
The case of R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 established essential guidelines for judges when directing juries on issues of disputed identification, focusing on the evidence's reliability.
Key Factors to Consider:
-
Visibility Conditions: Assess the lighting and environmental conditions during the observation.
-
Duration of Observation: Consider how long the witness had to observe the suspect.
-
Distance: Evaluate the proximity between the witness and suspect.
-
Obstructions: Identify any obstacles that may have impeded the witness's view.
-
Prior Acquaintance: Determine if the witness knew the suspect beforehand, which might affect recognition.
-
Time Elapsed: Consider the interval between the incident and the identification procedure.
Applying the Guidelines:
In circumstances where a witness had only a brief encounter with the suspect under poor lighting, the legal adviser can argue that the identification is unreliable. The judge should then provide the jury with a cautionary instruction emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of the identification evidence.
Exclusion of Evidence Under PACE
Section 78 of PACE 1984 grants courts the discretion to exclude prosecution evidence if its admission would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings.
Grounds for Exclusion:
-
Non-compliance with Code D procedures.
-
Evidence obtained through unfair or improper means.
Practical Application:
If, for example, the police conducted a group identification without ensuring the suspect did not stand out—perhaps the suspect was the only individual of a certain age or ethnicity—the legal adviser can apply to have the identification evidence excluded due to procedural unfairness.
Conclusion
Understanding the detailed procedures for carrying out identification under PACE 1984 and Code D is fundamental for legal advisers tasked with protecting their clients' rights. The interaction between statutory requirements and judicial guidelines, such as those established in R v Turnbull, highlights the challenge of assessing identification evidence. Legal advisers must diligently monitor the conduct of identification procedures, proactively address any instances of non-compliance, and skillfully challenge evidence that may be unreliable or unfairly obtained. By meticulously applying these principles and employing legal mechanisms for exclusion, advisers play a key role in upholding justice and ensuring that only credible and properly obtained evidence is presented in court.
