Law Notes Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes
A collection of the best Criminal Procedure and Evidence notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding students with the highest results in England and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of Criminal Procedure and Evidence notes available in the UK this year. This collect...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Identification evidence
Identification evidence is inherently unreliable
Several grave miscarriages of justice e.g Adolf Beck & Motton
Devlin Committee 76: reported it carries a special risk of wrong conviction
Value of evidence of identification v difficult assess & no way of deterring mistakes - witnesses normally confident of who they saw, even if mistaken
Since, courts & legislature have tried to reduce risk - Turnbull 76 + PACE Code D
R v Turnball (CA, 76): basically implemented Devlin’s recommendations
Imposes duty:
to warn if prosecution relies wholly/substantially on contested ID evidence,
or to withdraw case from jury if ID evidence poor & unsupported
note judicial direction needs be clear/compartmentalised (Servis)
Daley: shopkeeper identified D as killer but only saw from concealed hiding place - not good view - was basically only evidence against D - had to withdraw
Dassett 13: witness was only piece of evidence but had good look for several minutes - no problem
but as pointed out by Lord Steyn in Mills Turnbull is not a statute
Judge still has broad discretion to do in own way but should comply with sense & spirit of guidance in Turnbull
Turnbull explains form of warning, now in specimens directions:
Special need for caution & give reason
Give circs of ID & reliability of recall - explain specific weaknesses of the ID
Itemise potential ‘supporting evidence’
If false alibi - say this doesn’t necessarily = guilt (plenty of people do this)
If evidence obtained in breach of Code D & admitted, comment
Pattison & Exley 96 no mandatory requirement of separate summary in every case but if given, must be complete & deal with all aspects
Particularly emphasise specific weaknesses
Nash: importance of the direction emphasised - ensure full force of Turnball conveyed
Exact words irrelevant but ensure summing-up exposes jury to dangers Turnball sought address
Might think withdrawing case might conflict with ‘no case to answer’ Galbraith
but PC in Daley said compatible
If courts fail warn when should have, appellate courts will consider it seriously
Reid v R 79: allowed appeal (but no retrial)
Shand v R 96: only rarely should court dispense with the direction even if only ID witness’s credibility in issue
When is Turnball warning necessary?
note duty to warn only applies to visual ID cases
Atkinson 87: palm-print - Turnball not required
Browning: car ID - Turnball warning not necessary here
Conibeer 02: necessary as D admitted there, q was what he did
Huddart 99: no Turnball warning/procedure where is a dog and D, the owner, was convicted for not keeping him under control!
supporting evidence:
Corroboration (Turnbull) - things like DNA etc
Other IDs: Devlin Committee said shouldn’t
but Weeder 80 said yes - 1 witness’ statement may support another
Pattison & Exley 96: 2/more positive IDs - jury must be warmed
Odd coincidences e.g Penny 92 one of juror’s randomly knew public toilet mentioned was closed at time, undermining story
False alibis/Alibis: Lesley 96 judge should routinely tell jury that alibi sometimes invented to bolster a true defence
More generally lies can support a visual ID but need Lucas direction on how jury can use lies!
Propensity evidence: s.101 CJA 03
fleeting encounter vs recognition
Turnbull said remind jury mistakes sometimes made even where witness purporting recognise s.o he knows
Ley 07 ‘There are recognition cases and recognition cases’ - degree of familiarity & circs of ID are relevant
May get probs where police ‘recognises’ D - has connotations that D is a criminal as they are known to police, or where ID’ d police photos e.g Campbell
Must comply with Code D - just need explanation with as little prejudice as possible as to how know it’s him - don’t need disclose full record
Note some evidence from LSE suggests conviction rate higher where Turnbull warning given - may need question if it achieves what intended!
Taylor v CC of Cheshire 86: shoplifting - CCTV - is a fleeting glimpse any less fleeting because it has been played again & again? Not answered in case but may suggest Turnbull direction unnecessary….
Means of identification
Identification procedures
Set out in Code D PACE 84 - latest version 2017
Previous version already ended primacy of ID parade
Police figures suggested half of ID parades cancelled because D didn’t show up/refused
Video IDs cancelled in only 5% cases - Valentine & Heaton suggest fairer then live - by 2004/5 98% ID parades conducted using video tech - saved lot of time & 143m
Originally had to hold ID parade whenever suspect disputes ID & consents - or where PC considers useful & D consents
Para 3.12 If before any ID procedure has been held
Eye-witness has suspected/purported to have identified them
There’s eye-witness available who expressed ability identity suspect, or
Reasonable chance of eye-witness being able identify suspect
And eye-witness in a-c not been given opp identify suspect in 3.5-10 procedures, ID Procedure held whenever suspect disputes ID unless not practicable/serves no useful purpose in proving/disproving D’s involvement
e.g where D admits bring at scene & eye-witness doesn’t contradict
or where not disputed D well known to W
3.13 adds, may be held if officer in charge considers useful
3.11 when ID procedure required, must be held ASAP in interests of fairness to suspects & witnesses
note done away with consent requirement/doesn’t specify - D can refuse but consequences
3.14 says initially offer video ID unless not practicable, ID parade practicable & more suitable, or Para 3.16 applies - thus preference to vid ID
3.5 Video ID = W shown moving pictures of known suspect, together with others who resemble D
3.7 ID parade = line of at least 8 plus D (/8 others resembling D)
Normally 1 suspect per parade but if 2 suspects, can do 1 parade with at least 12 others (where the 2 suspects look similar)
3.16 group...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes.
A collection of the best Criminal Procedure and Evidence notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding students with the highest results in England and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of Criminal Procedure and Evidence notes available in the UK this year. This collect...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started