Williams, R v

Recognition evidence does not become inadmissible hearsay merely because a witness learned the recognised person's name through repeated, uncontradicted use within a small community. Where the witness has seen the person repeatedly over many years, the central issue is recognition of the person, rather than the source of knowledge of that person's name.

An identification procedure should ordinarily be held when required by the applicable Code. Its absence does not necessarily make a trial unfair where the jury is directed to take account of the lost safeguard and receives appropriate warnings on the need for caution.

The appellant was convicted at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court of inflicting grievous bodily harm and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. The prosecution relied principally on evidence from a companion of the victim, who said that he recognised the appellant and his brother as the assailants from repeated sightings in their small local community over many years.

No identification parade was held despite a defence request. The appellant appealed, contending that the witness’s knowledge of the assailants’ names depended on hearsay, that there was no admissible identification evidence, and that the absence of an identification procedure rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction was safe. Richards J gave the judgment of the court.

2. This was a case of recognition, not identification based merely on a name supplied by others. The witness had repeatedly seen the appellant and his brother over many years, knew that they lived close by, and knew them in the small community as Andrew and Paul Williams. The appellant’s name and residence were undisputed. Those matters supported an overwhelming inference that the appellant was the man recognised by the witness. The material question was recognition of that man as an assailant, not the correctness of his name.

3. The court followed the practical approach in R v Clarke and Baker [2003] EWCA Crim 718. Repeated and uncontradicted association of a person with a name may become common repute and common knowledge. The case was close to that authority and materially different from R v Fergus [1992] Crim LR 363, where the witness had seen the assailant only once before. There was therefore no misdirection and the Recorder correctly left the evidence to the jury.

4. An identification parade should have been held. However, the Recorder directed the jury that the appellant had lost that safeguard and gave appropriate warnings about careful evaluation of the recognition evidence. The decision to permit the case to proceed was within the Recorder’s discretion and was not unfair.

5. There was also a sufficient evidential basis for the jury to find that the witness had repeatedly had the brothers identified to him by name over the years. That issue was properly left to the jury.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Merthyr Tydfil: on 12 January 2004, convicted the appellant of inflicting grievous bodily harm and imposed two years’ imprisonment.