Subject: Criminal evidence. Other related subjects



Download 123.58 Kb.
Page3/3
Date conversion16.05.2016
Size123.58 Kb.
1   2   3


20.

See Penrod and Cutler, above n. 5 at 114.



21.

Ibid. at 113.



22.

Of course, some cases will be subject to appeal.



23.

Twining, above n. 1 at 165.



24.

Code D, para. 3.11.



25.

Code D provides that an identification parade may be used where a video identification is not practicable, or a parade would be more suitable, see Code D, para. 3.14. A group identification procedure may be conducted where it is considered more suitable than a video identification or identification parade, see Code D, para. 3.16. Detailed provisions concerning the manner in which video identifications, identification parades and group identifications are to be conducted can be found in Annexes A, B and C of Code D respectively.



26.

Code D, Annex A, para. 2.



27.

In the case of video identification: Code D, Annex A, para. 10.



28.

Video identification: Code D, Annex A, para. 10; Identification parade, Code D, Annex B, para. 15.



29.

Ibid.


30.

Video identification, Code D, Annex A, para. 11; Identification parade, Code D, Annex B, para. 16.



31.

Video identification, Code D, Annex A, para. 11; Identification parade, Code D, Annex B, para. 16.



32.

Video identification: Code D, Annex A, para. 13; Identification parade: Code D, Annex B, para. 20.



33.

Video identification: Code D, Annex A, para. 14; Identification parade: Code D, Annex B, para. 21.



34.

Code D, para. 3.1



35.

Video identification: Code D, Annex A, para. 7; Identification parade: Code D, Annex B, para. 12.



36.

Video identification: Code D, Annex A, para. 18; Identification parade: Code D, Annex B, para. 28.



37.

Identification parade: Code D, Annex B, para. 23. If a video identification procedure is used, then a video recording of the procedure is only necessary where the suspect's legal representative is not present, Code D, Annex B, para. 9.



38.

See E. Connors et al., Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial (National Institute of Justice: Washington, DC, 1996).



39.

Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement (US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs: 1999).

40.

Ibid.


41.

These are the recommendations that (1) the person who conducts the procedure should not know which person is the suspect, and (2) the confidence that a witness holds in any identification made be recorded.



42.

G. Davies and T. Valentine, ‘Codes of Practice for Identification’ (1999) 7 Expert Evidence 59. See also M. Kebbell, ‘The Law Concerning the Conduct of Lineups in England and Wales: How Well Does It Satisfy the Recommendations of the American Psychology Law Society? (2000) 24 Law and Human Behavior 309, and I. McKenzie, ‘Eyewitness Evidence: Will the United States Guide for Law Enforcement Make Any Difference? (2003) 7 E & P 237.



43.

Code D, para. 3.4 (2003).



44.

Code D, para. 2.17 (1995), ‘A police officer may take a witness to a particular neighbourhood or place to see whether he can identify the person whom he said he saw on the relevant occasion. Before doing so, where practicable a record shall be made of any of the suspect. Care should be taken not to direct the witness's attention to any individual.’



45.

Code D, para. 3.2(d).



46.

Code D, para. 3.2(c).



47.

Code D, para. 3.2(d).



48.

See A. Slater, The Universal Video Booth: Planned and Tested, Police Research Award Scheme (Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit: 1999) 18-23; G. Pike, N. Brace and S. Kynan, The Visual Identification of Suspects: Procedures and Practice, Briefing Note 2/02 (Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit: 2002), who reported that a majority of police officers interviewed on the subject of improving identification procedures felt that current guidance on street identifications could be improved. For an example of a case in which the procedures adopted by the police appear poor, see R v O'Brien [2003] EWCA Crim 1370 (see commentary by A. Roberts (2003) 68 JCL 27).



49.

The Technical Working Group of the US National Institute of Justice, above n. 38, recommended that the witness should be told that: ‘It is as important to clear innocent persons from suspicion as to identify guilty parties’, ‘The person who committed the crime may or may not be present’ and ‘Regardless of whether or not an identification is made, the police will continue to investigate the incident’.



50.

See D. Birch, commentary on R v Hickin [1996] Crim LR 584 at 586.



51.

Code D, para. 3.2.



52.

See R v Popat [1998] 2 Cr App R 208; R v Forbes [1999] 2 Cr App R 501, CA; R v Popat (No. 2) [2000] 1 Cr App R 387; R v Forbes [2001] 1 Cr App R 430, HL.



53.

A. Sanders and R. Young, ‘The Rule of Law, Due Process and Pre-Trial Criminal Justice’ (1994) 47 Current Legal Problems 125.



54.

See M. Freeman, ‘Law and Order in 1984’ (1984) 37 Current Legal Problems 175.



55.

Sanders and Young, above n. 53 at 129.



56.

Some of these are summarised by A. Ashworth, The Criminal Process: An Evaluative Study (Oxford University Press: 1998) 27-8.



57.

H. Packer, Limits of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford University Press: 1968); see also A. Sanders and R. Young, Criminal Justice, 2nd edn (Butterworths: London, 2000) 22-32.



58.

Sanders and Young, above n. 53; R. Young and A. Sanders, ‘Royal Commission on Criminal Justice: A Confidence Trick?’ (1994) 14 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 435.



59.

Code D, para. 2.1.



60.

Code D, para. 2.3.



61.

See E. Cape, ‘The Revised PACE Codes of Practice: A Further Step Towards Inquisitorialism’ [2003] Crim LR 355.



62.

PACE (Codes of Practice) (Temporary Modifications to Code D) Order 2002 (SI 2002 No. 615).



63.

‘Identification Procedures: Introduction of Changes to Section 2 of PACE Code D’, Home Office, Police Leadership and Powers Unit, 25 March 2002.



64.

For analysis, see A. Roberts, ‘Identification Evidence: Rule, Principle, Discretion and Reform of Code D after Forbes ’ (2002) 66 JCL 250; A. Roberts and S. Clover, ‘Managerialism and Myopia: The Government's Consultation Draft on PACE Code D’ [2002] Crim LR 883; D. Wolchover and A. Heaton-Armstrong, ‘Farewell to Forbes ’ (2003) 7 Archbold News 4; P. Bogan, ‘Forbes Alive and Well’ (2003) 9 Archbold News 5; D. Wolchover and A. Heaton-Armstrong ‘A Reply to ‘Forbes Alive and Well” (2003) 9 Archbold News 6.



65.

Report of the Joint Home Office/Cabinet Office Review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Home Office/Cabinet Office: 2002) at para. 2.

66.

See M. Zander, ‘The Joint Review of PACE: A Deplorable Report’ (2003) 153 NLJ 204.



67.

Joint Review, above n. 65 at 14.



68.

See Ashworth, above n. 56 at 30: ‘This is a rhetorical device of which one must be extremely wary. At worst it is a substitute for argument: “achieving a balance” is put forward as if it were self-evidently a worthy and respectable goal … [M]any of those who employ this terminology fail to stipulate exactly what is being balanced, what factors and interests are being included or excluded, what weight is being assigned to particular values, and so on. Where this occurs it amounts to self-delusion or intellectual dishonesty.’



69.

Above n. 42.



70.

M. Zander, The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, 4th edn (Sweet & Maxwell: London, 2003) para. 6-18 suggests that this was due mainly to the findings of the Runciman Commission on Criminal Justice, Cm 2263 (1993) 48, para. 102 and that there were ‘hardly any’ disciplinary proceedings for breaches of PACE.



71.

Particularly in view of the fact that any unwillingness to take part in procedures can not be overcome by means of physical coercion, see R v Jones (Derek), The Times (21 April 1999).



72.

See McKenzie, above n. 42 at 256.



73.

See e.g. R v Williams [2003] EWCA Crim 3200; R v O'Brien [2003] EWCA Crim 1370.



74.

R v Lambert [2004] All ER (D) 48 Jan; R v Noonan [2003] EWCA Crim 3869; R v DPP [2003] EWHC Admin 3074 ; R v Harris [2003] EWCA Crim 174; K v DPP [2003] EWHC Admin 351; R v Lydiate [2004] EWCA Crim 245.

75.

[2003] EWCA Crim 3200.



76.

Paragraph 2.26(b) of the provisions that were temporarily in force at the time of the offence, see Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Temporary Modifications to Code D) Order 2002 (SI 2002 No. 615). The corresponding provision is found in para. 3.2(b) of the version of the Code issued in 2003.



77.

R v Williams [2003] EWCA Crim 3200 at [12].

78.

Exclusion of evidence in cases of a breach of the Code is a vexed issue, which it is not possible to address here. However, one possibility that might be examined is the identification of certain of the Code's provisions as ‘keystones’ and making breach of these provisions subject to a statutory presumption of exclusion with, perhaps, an inclusionary discretion.



79.

[1999] 2 Cr App R 501.



80.

Ibid. at 517C, per Laws LJ.



81.

See F. Schauer, Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and in Life (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1991) 122-34.



82.

J. P. Salembier, ‘Designing Regulatory Systems: A Template for Regulatory Rule-Making’ (2002) 23 Statute Law Review 165-90 at 177.


© 2011 Vathek Publishing
³1Áß5»âÏ7ˆìí¡ŠàA$S†g#ïFAYþ§­aö—q`êSBÑèÅt*‰%øü¿à:m·ø^§ ÐÄÕûH­OÄÏÙÊ÷â_ˆOo
1   2   3


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page