R v Turnbull
Judges must warn juries of the special need for caution before convicting on identification evidence.
Facts
Several appeals raised the problem of convictions based on disputed identification evidence, which had led to a number of miscarriages of justice. In one of the cases, a man had been identified as the person who had committed a crime by a witness who had only had a fleeting glance of the offender in difficult conditions.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for cases that depend wholly or substantially on the correctness of disputed identification evidence. The judge must warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting in reliance on such evidence, explaining that a mistaken witness can be a convincing one and that several witnesses can all be mistaken. The judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances of the identification, including how long the witness had the accused under observation, at what distance, in what light, and whether the observation was impeded. Where the identification evidence is poor and unsupported, the judge should withdraw the case from the jury. These are known as Turnbull directions.
Related cases on criminal justice, evidence and appeals
- Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254
- Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
- R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18, [2012] 1 AC 48
- R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, [2020] AC 279
- R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267
- R v Cowan [1996] QB 373
- R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36, [2008] 1 AC 1128
- R v Dunlop [2006] EWCA Crim 1354, [2007] 1 WLR 1657
Studying english legal system? 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.
