Pecco, R. v

An identification parade has negligible evidential value where a suspect’s conspicuous feature enables a witness to eliminate the other participants. Such identification evidence should not be left to the jury unless it can fairly test the reliability of the witness’s recognition.

If defective identification evidence is admitted, the jury must receive a clear direction on the risk that the witness selected the suspect because of the distinctive feature rather than facial recognition. Where that evidence is central and the direction is inadequate, the resulting conviction is unsafe and must be quashed.

The appellant was convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court of robbery and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The robbery was not disputed, but she denied being the robber and relied on an alibi.

She had two conspicuous neck tattoos, which had been noticed by witnesses. At a video identification parade, the other participants did not, or largely did not, display comparable tattoos. One witness identified the appellant. There was no other significant evidence linking her to the robbery.

The appeal concerned whether the defective identification procedure and the trial judge’s direction rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction was unsafe and was quashed.
2. The video identification parade was defective and was not conducted in accordance with the Code. The appellant’s conspicuous neck tattoos allowed a witness to exclude the other participants because they did not have comparable features. The procedure therefore did not provide a reliable test of recognition, and its evidential value was insignificant.
3. There was no other significant evidence against the appellant. No clothing matching that of the robber was found, and there was no fingerprint or DNA evidence. The identification evidence should consequently not have been put before the jury.
4. Once the evidence had been admitted, the judge needed to direct the jury clearly to consider whether the witness identified the appellant because she was effectively the only participant who could match the robber’s distinctive neck appearance. The summing-up did not adequately address that stark defect.
5. The court stressed that identification procedures must comply with the Code because they are designed to reduce the risk of mistaken identifications and wrongful convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Allowed the appeal against conviction and quashed the conviction as unsafe.
• Snaresbrook Crown Court — Convicted the appellant of robbery on 27 February 2009 and imposed four years’ imprisonment.