Visual Identification

Do we take good stock of our surroundings? Can we recall details about persons we meet? Very often we do not pay attention or we fail to note the distinctive features of persons around us. This is because we do not expect to be called upon to recount description of every person we meet. With the prevalence of crimes we have to change the way we operate.{{more}} We can no longer take the casual or respectful glance of persons around us. We have to take that discreet stare that take in as much details as possible.

Although there is no scientific formula for identifying a person any one should remember the following:-

• The physical features- tall/short, hair colour, complexion
• The gait/ bearing – how a person carries himself/ herself
• The clothes worn
• Any other distinctive feature such as scars.

If you see the person who attacked you or who illegally entered your house you would be called upon to identify the person. If the person is well known to you then it would be very helpful. You could be shown pictures of the suspect but this method of identification is not very reliable and an identity parade is the preferred method of identifying the suspect. You would be asked to pick the person in a line up which includes the suspect.

R v Turnbull and others

If the accused person disputes that he is the person who committed the crime and the case depends substantially or wholly on identification of that person, then certain guidelines must be followed. The guidelines are given in the case of R v Turnbull and others (3AER, 1976) by Lord Widgery CJ. The guidelines are to be observed by the court in the trial when the defense alleges that the identity of the accused is mistaken. The jury has to be warned about “the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identification” (p.551). The judge must remind the jury of the possibility of a mistaken witness being a convincing one.

Quality of the observation

According to Lord Widgery consideration must be given to the length of time the witness had to observe the accused. Hence a fleeting glance might not be sufficient to observe the features of the accused unless that person is familiar. In fact the question as to whether the witness had seen the accused before must be raised. It must go further as to find out how often the accused was seen by the witness. If the meeting is occasional then it raises the question of the special reason the witness would have to remember the accused. The distance away from the accused and the lighting are also crucial. Poor lighting would obviously affect the quality of the observation.

Ada Johnson is a solicitor and barrister-at-law.
E-mail address is: exploringthelaw@yahoo.com