H, R (on the application of) v DPP

Where a suspect disputes identification, Code D ordinarily requires an identification parade. The obligation does not apply where the investigating officer is entitled, on the information reasonably available at the time, to treat the case as one of pure recognition by a witness who knows the suspect well. The fact that other witnesses may identify the suspect is not, by itself, a justification for omitting a parade. Recognition remains distinct from identification: a witness may know the suspect but still be mistaken about whether that person was present at the offence. Identification evidence requires careful assessment under the R v Turnbull guidelines, but corroboration is not a prerequisite. A conviction may rest on a single witness’s identification where the tribunal is sure that the recognition was accurate.

The claimant, aged 16, was convicted by East Sussex Justices sitting as a Youth Court of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The prosecution relied principally on the alleged victim’s recognition of the claimant, who denied being present. No identification parade was held.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated. She challenged the admission and sufficiency of the identification evidence, raising the application of Code D, section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the Turnbull safeguards.

1. The appeal was dismissed in substance. The justices were entitled to admit the identification evidence and to convict.

2. Code D applied because identity was disputed. The mandatory obligation to hold a parade ordinarily required compliance where a suspect disputed identification. Following R v Forbes [2001] AC 473, however, there may be exceptional situations outside the express wording of the Code. One is a case of pure recognition by an eyewitness who knows the suspect well.

3. The investigating officer was entitled to conclude that this was such a case. The claimant and the alleged victim accepted that they knew each other, and neither the claimant nor her legal representative raised any doubt about the possibility of recognition. The claimant’s denial that she was present kept identification in issue, since the witness might have recognised her but been mistaken about her presence at the scene. That distinction remained for the justices to assess.

4. The officer’s belief that other witnesses could identify the claimant would not, alone, have justified omitting the parade. It was nevertheless unnecessary to decide the case on that basis because the pure-recognition justification was sufficient.

5. The quality of the evidence had to be assessed under the R v Turnbull guidelines. The darkness, the witness’s initial view from behind and the limited clothing description were relevant, but the area was reasonably lit, the claimant was close to the witness during the assault, and the justices rejected the claimant’s evidence as evasive and imprecise. They were entitled to find that the evidence was sufficient to support guilt.

6. Corroboration of identification evidence was unnecessary. If the justices were sure that the alleged victim’s recognition was accurate, they could convict on that evidence alone.

• East Sussex Justices, sitting as a Youth Court: convicted the claimant of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
• High Court (Administrative Court): on appeal by way of case stated, upheld the admission and sufficiency of the identification evidence and answered the stated questions in favour of the prosecution.