CASE SUMMARIES : Identification
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Identification
North Yorkshire Trading Standards Dept v Williams; QB (Div Ct) (Rose LJ, Potts J); 3 Nov 1994.
Justices should adopt the same approach to dock identification evidence in cases of non-arrestable summary offences as in more serious ones. That was so even where trading standards officers had to use a procedure which precluded any form of identification procedure contained in Code D of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The principles by which justices should be guided were: (i) although dock identifications were generally undesirable they were admissible in law; (ii) whether a d o ck identification should be admitted was for the justices to decide in exercising their discretion in relation to the facts of the case; (iii) if dock identification evidence was admitted, justices would have to be reminded by their clerk of the dangers of such identification in accordance with R v Turnbull 1977 QB 224.
Andrew Goodman (Harland & Co, York) for the appellant; the respondent did not appear.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments