Johal, R. v

In a visual-identification case, a trial judge need not rehearse every defence argument. The judge must, however, fairly and coherently place before the jury any specific weaknesses arguably exposed in the identification evidence, so that their cumulative effect can be assessed. The governing question is whether the summing-up, read as a whole and in the circumstances of the case, sufficiently exposed the weaknesses and dangers of the evidence. A conviction remains safe where the jury received appropriate general warnings and the material inconsistencies and limitations of the identification evidence were adequately brought to its attention.

The appellant was convicted at Isleworth Crown Court of violent disorder, aggravated burglary, wounding with intent and criminal damage arising from an armed attack on the Chana family at their home. He received a total sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment.

His defence was alibi. The central issue at trial was whether he had been correctly identified as involved in the attack. The Full Court granted leave to appeal on one ground only: that the trial judge’s summing-up had failed to identify the specific weaknesses in the identification evidence. The appellant also invited the court to find a lurking doubt about the safety of the convictions.

1. Appeal dismissed. The convictions were safe and the court rejected the submission that there was a lurking doubt.
2. In a visual-identification case, the judge must fairly place before the jury specific weaknesses arguably disclosed by the evidence. As R v Fergus [1994] 98 Cr App R 313 and R v Pattinson & Exley [1996] 1 Cr App R 51 showed, the practical inquiry is whether the summing-up sufficiently exposed the weaknesses and dangers of the identification evidence, generally and in the particular circumstances.
3. The evidence contained specific weaknesses. There was inconsistency between the accounts of what the appellant had done. Amarjit’s earlier statement did not identify him as present and stated that she could not identify other members of the group. The judge expressly drew the latter matter to the jury’s attention and recited the cross-examination that exposed it.
4. Read as a whole, the summing-up was adequate. The judge gave the standard identification warnings, including the risk of mistaken recognition. He drew attention to Amarjit’s short opportunity for observation, the differing accounts of the duration of the incident, her failure to provide a prior description, and the reliability of her subsequent identification. The remaining criticisms were matters the jury could assess, having heard the evidence and counsel’s submissions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave was granted by the Full Court on the sole ground concerning directions on identification evidence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
• Isleworth Crown Court: The appellant was convicted on 24 July 2006 and sentenced on 18 August 2006. No citation was stated in the judgment.