Lariba & Ors v R

Recognition evidence from CCTV may be admitted where the image is sufficiently clear to permit a witness who knows the suspect well to recognise him. Its reliability remains for the jury, which must be able to test the asserted recognition and receive appropriate cautions.

Code D safeguards for formal recognition viewings apply in practice to viewings specifically arranged by police, rather than mass public circulation of images. A breach of those safeguards does not automatically require exclusion under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The court must assess the resulting disadvantage, the available means of testing reliability, and the fairness of the trial as a whole.

Three young men were convicted at the Central Criminal Court of the murder of a 15-year-old who was pursued and attacked by a group of rival gang members. The appellant, Lariba, challenged the admission of police recognition evidence from CCTV footage. Five officers who knew him identified him from the recording, but the procedures had not fully complied with Code D.

Edwards Dos Santos sought an extension of time and permission to appeal his conviction. He alleged that leading counsel’s absence during parts of the trial had deprived him of a fair trial. Lariba and Hamilton also renewed applications for permission to appeal minimum terms imposed for murder. The central issue on Lariba’s appeal was whether the quality of the images and procedural breaches made the recognition evidence unreliable or unfairly prejudicial.

1. Lariba’s appeal against conviction was dismissed. Recognition evidence from a scene-of-crime image was relevant and admissible if its quality permitted a witness familiar with the suspect to make a recognition. The jury could assess the recognition because the footage was permanent and available to them, even though it was not good enough for the jury themselves to identify the suspect by comparison with the defendant in court.
2. The trial judge had been wrong to regard the officers’ familiarity with a limited group of gang members as enhancing reliability unless other possible suspects had been excluded. That error did not affect the outcome. The officers’ long and varied familiarity with Lariba’s appearance, clothing and manner of cycling was capable of supporting recognition from the partial image.
3. Code D Part B applied, in practice, to a police-arranged specific viewing for recognition evidence. It did not practicably govern a general public invitation to view internet or television footage. The formal procedure should have produced the safeguards and record required by the Code.
4. The failures to make the required contemporaneous records created a disadvantage, but did not make the evidence plainly unreliable or its admission unfair under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Witness statements were made immediately after the formal viewings; the witnesses and footage were available for cross-examination and scrutiny; non-recognition by other officers was before the jury; the summing-up gave an extreme-caution direction; and there was limited supporting identification evidence. The evidence of all five recognising officers was admissible, although the trial judge’s different treatment of two of them could not be sustained.
5. The other applications were refused. Edwards Dos Santos showed neither a critical absence of leading counsel nor prejudice from the arrangements at trial. Leading counsel should accept double-booking only exceptionally, and with the approval of client and court. The minimum terms imposed on Lariba and Hamilton were not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Lariba’s conviction appeal was dismissed. Edwards Dos Santos was refused an extension of time and leave to appeal conviction. Lariba and Hamilton were refused leave to appeal sentence.
• Central Criminal Court: A jury convicted Lariba, Edwards Dos Santos and Hamilton of murder. They were ordered to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure, with minimum terms set by His Honour Judge Bevan QC.