Doherty, R. v

Recognition evidence from CCTV stills is admissible where the images and the circumstances of recognition allow a jury properly to assess its reliability. Exclusion is appropriate where the images are so poor, or distinguishing features so obscured, that satisfactory recognition cannot be made. Otherwise, reliability is ordinarily for the jury, with the benefit of cross-examination and suitable warnings.

Previous convictions do not improperly bolster a weak prosecution case where there is independent evidence capable of supporting conviction.

The appellant was tried at Ipswich Crown Court on three counts of burglary arising from burglaries in Peterborough. CCTV stills from one address showed two burglars. A police officer said that he recognised the appellant in the images.

Before the jury heard that evidence, the judge conducted a voir dire and admitted it. The judge also admitted five previous convictions. The appellant was acquitted on the first count but convicted on the second and third counts, and received concurrent sentences of five years’ imprisonment.

On appeal against conviction, he contended that the recognition evidence and the previous convictions should have been excluded. The central issue was whether the quality of the CCTV stills permitted the jury fairly to assess the asserted recognition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge was entitled to admit the police officer’s recognition evidence from the CCTV stills.

2. The court applied the approach in R v Moss [2011] EWCA Crim 252. In an informal recognition context, the decisive question is whether the jury can properly assess the reliability of the recognition. Evidence should be excluded if the image is too poor for satisfactory recognition, or if relevant distinguishing features are hidden. In many cases, however, reliability is a question for the jury.

3. Although the photographs were not straightforward and much of the suspected burglar’s clothing was visible, they showed part of his face, hairline, apparent height, build and posture. The officer identified the features on which he relied, and defence counsel thoroughly cross-examined him before the jury. The jury could therefore reach its own balanced conclusion on the reliability of the recognition.

4. The admission of the previous convictions was also proper. The prosecution case was supported by the recognition evidence, the appellant’s presence at premises containing stolen property, and his admission of ownership of stolen items. The convictions were not admitted merely to reinforce a weak case.

5. The summing-up gave appropriate warnings about the dangers of identification and recognition evidence, and appropriate guidance on the relevance of previous convictions. No basis existed to disturb the convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction.

• Ipswich Crown Court: The appellant was acquitted of the first burglary count and convicted of the second and third counts. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment concurrently on those counts.