unlawful dock identification
Discussion
What is an unlawful dock identification and why is it unlawful?
As mentioned in this Quora Answer, which is an interesting read anyway.
https://qr.ae/TUhu0p
As mentioned in this Quora Answer, which is an interesting read anyway.
https://qr.ae/TUhu0p
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Friday 9th November 21:44
Identification evidence is awful to deal with. Mostly because many times witnesses have been mistaken, so it is weighed very heavily in favour of the defence. The prosecution do sometimes use a dock ID, when the witness has already made an ID just for presentation.
The prosecution should not generally be introducing new primary evidence at a trial. If a witness has not already identified/recognised the defendant then they shouldn't be doing it when the defendent is in the Dock.
Given the unreliability and unlawfulnes - the defence would stand a great chance of arguing that no direction to a jury would be enough to allow them to reach a fair verdict and we would all come back another day.
The prosecution should not generally be introducing new primary evidence at a trial. If a witness has not already identified/recognised the defendant then they shouldn't be doing it when the defendent is in the Dock.
Given the unreliability and unlawfulnes - the defence would stand a great chance of arguing that no direction to a jury would be enough to allow them to reach a fair verdict and we would all come back another day.
I was sole identification officer for my force. There were a number of other ID officers in a little group we organised. We fed one another decisions from various courts. We got appeal hearings but many crown court judges made horrendous decisions. CPS often would not challenge a decision, despite there being ample precedent to show that the judge was spouting rubbish. It then became accepted by that crown court area.
When I took over the role I was given a bulging loose leaf folder with decisions from our CC as well as appeal courts. After two years it ran into three folders, with another, albeit thinner, one for the indexes.
ID officers have threatened to assault CPS lawyers who wanted to pull a case once the defence came out with some unsupported challenge from the defence. I was told, oddly as a derogatory term, that I had a reputation amongst CPS briefs as being ‘difficult’. One part of my job I did right then.
I had a large briefcase that I used to take to trials – 135 or so full witness orders in two years, giving evidence about 25% of the time. If the defendant was rich or had picked one of the defence briefs that liked to stir things up with new, law I would provide a précis to the prosecution of cases that I thought might answer defence challenges or ‘assist’ the judge. You could tell by their response that they really looked forward to reading it.
But you can’t blame CPS lawyers for not keeping up with ID precedent as new stuff appeared weekly. The CPS nominated an ID specialist lawyer for the area and they would turn up at major incident meetings. It was normally the runt of the litter or someone going off on maternity leave. They would then accept what I said and then go back to their books and check it out at their leisure and get back to me if something wasn’t clear.
ID officers did it half a dozen or so times a day, five or more days a week so they stood a much better chance of knowing what they were talking about. If something came up in a parade, an email around the guys normally got an answer back in half a day.
The method of identification is clear enough. There should be no simple challenge. Points of law and such should be all that is left to the defence. Whilst there is much evidence to suggest that eye-witness evidence should not be trusted, I never had anyone identified who either was not the suspect or looked remarkably like them. (Not sure about all those negatives.)
About a third of my identification parades were nothing more than a fishing expedition by the defence, hoping that a mistake would be made that they could challenge in a trial. I once had a young woman with learning difficulties who had been sexually assaulted and raped (she was unable to give consent) by her foster father over a period of four or five years. Once her distress was discovered to have a terrible cause, the foster father was banned from seeing her. The defence demanded, as they could then, a parade, this some six months or so after the order. The poor kid was bemused and very wary.
So she was not only a victim of her foster father but of the system as well.
The terrible stories I had to read out to one side, the law and procedure was fascinating. I never lost a case on ID evidence, despite planning six parades a day, with occasional ‘emergency’ ones, for two years. It was scary as well. Imagine all those in the incident room, working to find the offender and gain enough evidence to get a realistic prospect of conviction, if I’d messed up and lost the case.
If there was a muck-up in procedure in this case, then it is inexcusable. A lot of hard work wasted, and a victim left without proper service.
When I took over the role I was given a bulging loose leaf folder with decisions from our CC as well as appeal courts. After two years it ran into three folders, with another, albeit thinner, one for the indexes.
ID officers have threatened to assault CPS lawyers who wanted to pull a case once the defence came out with some unsupported challenge from the defence. I was told, oddly as a derogatory term, that I had a reputation amongst CPS briefs as being ‘difficult’. One part of my job I did right then.
I had a large briefcase that I used to take to trials – 135 or so full witness orders in two years, giving evidence about 25% of the time. If the defendant was rich or had picked one of the defence briefs that liked to stir things up with new, law I would provide a précis to the prosecution of cases that I thought might answer defence challenges or ‘assist’ the judge. You could tell by their response that they really looked forward to reading it.
But you can’t blame CPS lawyers for not keeping up with ID precedent as new stuff appeared weekly. The CPS nominated an ID specialist lawyer for the area and they would turn up at major incident meetings. It was normally the runt of the litter or someone going off on maternity leave. They would then accept what I said and then go back to their books and check it out at their leisure and get back to me if something wasn’t clear.
ID officers did it half a dozen or so times a day, five or more days a week so they stood a much better chance of knowing what they were talking about. If something came up in a parade, an email around the guys normally got an answer back in half a day.
The method of identification is clear enough. There should be no simple challenge. Points of law and such should be all that is left to the defence. Whilst there is much evidence to suggest that eye-witness evidence should not be trusted, I never had anyone identified who either was not the suspect or looked remarkably like them. (Not sure about all those negatives.)
About a third of my identification parades were nothing more than a fishing expedition by the defence, hoping that a mistake would be made that they could challenge in a trial. I once had a young woman with learning difficulties who had been sexually assaulted and raped (she was unable to give consent) by her foster father over a period of four or five years. Once her distress was discovered to have a terrible cause, the foster father was banned from seeing her. The defence demanded, as they could then, a parade, this some six months or so after the order. The poor kid was bemused and very wary.
So she was not only a victim of her foster father but of the system as well.
The terrible stories I had to read out to one side, the law and procedure was fascinating. I never lost a case on ID evidence, despite planning six parades a day, with occasional ‘emergency’ ones, for two years. It was scary as well. Imagine all those in the incident room, working to find the offender and gain enough evidence to get a realistic prospect of conviction, if I’d messed up and lost the case.
If there was a muck-up in procedure in this case, then it is inexcusable. A lot of hard work wasted, and a victim left without proper service.
Some interesting responses, but I'm no really any the wiser here.
I can see the self evident meaning from the words 'dock identification' but still not really clear why, or when this is unlawful. It seems entirely reasonable to me, even absolutely necessary for a eye witness to say that is the person I saw do X, unless identity is confirmed by other means like fingerprints or DNA.
The case example is a good read, but doesn't really explain the whys for me. So I'm clearly missing something here.
My legal knowledge is limited to what I need for work, IT mostly, with splattering of Consumer, employment and contract law. I find the criminal law interesting, but my knowledge is essentially the obvious common knowledge of joe public stuff, hence this and the other stupid questions I ask.
I can see the self evident meaning from the words 'dock identification' but still not really clear why, or when this is unlawful. It seems entirely reasonable to me, even absolutely necessary for a eye witness to say that is the person I saw do X, unless identity is confirmed by other means like fingerprints or DNA.
The case example is a good read, but doesn't really explain the whys for me. So I'm clearly missing something here.
My legal knowledge is limited to what I need for work, IT mostly, with splattering of Consumer, employment and contract law. I find the criminal law interesting, but my knowledge is essentially the obvious common knowledge of joe public stuff, hence this and the other stupid questions I ask.
Derek Smith said:
If there was a muck-up in procedure in this case, then it is inexcusable. A lot of hard work wasted, and a victim left without proper service.
The screw up was by the unnamed defence barrister, who was trying to play a games at a PCs expense and fell foul of his own scheme. The writer is a Met officer from North London, like yourself he is an engaging writer on Police matters and I've read a few of his answers to Quora questions.4x4Tyke said:
The screw up was by the unnamed defence barrister, who was trying to play a games at a PCs expense and fell foul of his own scheme. The writer is a Met officer from North London, like yourself he is an engaging writer on Police matters and I've read a few of his answers to Quora questions.
A dock ID is not unlawful if it is not new evidence. What may have happened in the linked account is that a witness, who had not previously identified the suspect, did so for the first time, in court. That may be exuberance or they may heave really identified them. ID parades (Now nearly always video ID) are held if identification is an issue and if there is a chance witness can identify the suspect. What is
a) Only allowed if everything else has been found to be impossible.
and
b) Next to useless evidentially
is to confront a witness with the suspect (Which is a cold Dock ID if one ever took place).
For example, if you had a witness who could describe what happened but it was believed they couldn't identify the suspect then the ID procedure doesn't kick in. This would look like someone making a statement saying a tall man, in a brown jumper, hit the doorman, from behind with a bottle. That's their evidence, if they say, I didn't see their face and wouldn't recognise them again then they almost certainly won't be viewing a video for obvious reasons.
If the police then arrest a tall man with a brown jumper covered in the victim's blood then it seems a good case and the witness would rock up at court. This will usually be months later, so if they then spontaneously say, when giving evidence, the guy behind the glass screen with the prison officer sat beside them hit the doorman with the bottle - the defence will drive a coach and horses through it. Since it took place in front of the jury they will almost certainly make it a mistrial. By the way much better to have a mistrial than an easy appeal since the latter gives the defence 2 goes at an acquittal and a free go at every witness.
Dock identifaction does not take place anymore as the fact that the person is in the dock is an inference that that it is the person who is supposed to have committed the offence.
" do you see person who ran past you after the assault on the doorman had taken place"
Who do you think the 16 year old girl is going to point to.
Been banned for at least 20 yrs.
" do you see person who ran past you after the assault on the doorman had taken place"
Who do you think the 16 year old girl is going to point to.
Been banned for at least 20 yrs.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff