Moorcroft, R. v

In an appeal founded on identification evidence, the adequacy of a Turnbull direction depends on the summing-up as a whole. The jury must be warned of the risk of honest but mistaken identification and directed to assess the circumstances of observation. A failure to repeat every factual detail will not render a conviction unsafe where the relevant matters have been sufficiently identified.

A case is not necessarily a fleeting-glimpse case where the witness had seen the suspect earlier and the possible perpetrators were confined to a small group. A trial judge may comment on the practical significance of identification risks, provided that the jury remains clearly responsible for the facts.

The appellant was convicted at Manchester Crown Court on 23 February 2007 of sexual assault of a female under 13, and received a two-year conditional discharge.

The complainant, aged 12, alleged that a member of staff at a roller-skating rink assaulted her. She identified the appellant at an identification parade. He denied the allegation.

By leave of the Single Judge, the appellant challenged the safety of his conviction. He principally contended that the judge's summing-up gave an inadequate identification direction under Turnbull [1977] 1 QB 224, and that there was a residual doubt arising from the evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction was not unsafe. The jury had been entitled to accept the complainant's evidence and to find that the appellant committed the assault.

2. The judge adequately addressed the dangers of identification in accordance with Turnbull [1977] 1 QB 224. He warned that honest witnesses can be mistaken and directed the jury to consider distance, lighting, duration of observation, obstruction or distraction, the interval before identification, and the initial description. He also drew attention to the evidence concerning glasses.

3. It would have been preferable for the judge expressly to remind the jury of the particular circumstances of the complainant's sighting. That omission did not undermine the safety of the conviction. The trial was short, and the relevant features had been identified for the jury's consideration.

4. The judge was entitled to distinguish the case from a classic fleeting-glimpse case. The complainant had seen the appellant working in the café before the incident. The possible perpetrators were in practice confined to two men, and she differentiated the man wearing glasses from the other man whom she alleged had assaulted her.

5. The judge's comment on the practical extent of the identification danger did not exceed the permissible bounds of judicial comment. He left the factual issue for the jury. Repeated playing of the video caused no unfairness, since it was difficult to discern and identity remained in issue until the appellant accepted that he appeared in it.

6. The remaining matters concerned credibility and accuracy. They had been tested before the jury, which heard both the complainant and the appellant. There was no basis for concluding that the jury had erred. No order was made for the respondent's costs of the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction and held that the conviction was not unsafe.
• Manchester Crown Court: On 23 February 2007, convicted the appellant of sexual assault of a female under 13 and imposed a two-year conditional discharge.