R v Forbes
The requirement in the code of practice to hold an identification parade where identification is disputed is mandatory, but a breach does not necessarily make a conviction unsafe if the jury is properly directed.
Facts
Mr Forbes was charged with attempted robbery. The victim saw him in the street shortly after the attack, while being driven around by the police, and identified him as the attacker. Mr Forbes disputed the identification and asked for an identification parade, but the police did not hold one, because they considered that the street identification was sufficient. He was convicted.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the police had breached Code D of the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which required an identification parade to be held whenever a suspect disputes an identification, even where there had already been a fully satisfactory or actual and complete identification. However, the conviction was not unsafe, because the judge had directed the jury about the breach and its significance, and the evidence of identification was strong. A breach of the code would require the jury to be directed that an identification parade enables a suspect to put the reliability of an eyewitness's identification to the test.
Related cases on witnesses, identification and expert evidence
- Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398
- Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6, [2016] 1 WLR 597
- R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4
- R v Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 1
- R v Clark (Sally) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
- R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903
- R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36, [2008] 1 AC 1128
- R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
