Regina v Sinan Ozger

Film or photographic evidence may be used for identification even where the precise comparison does not fall within an expressly identified category. The categories in Attorney General's Reference No 2 of 2002 [2003] 1 Cr App R 21 are non-exhaustive. There is no rigid rule preventing a jury from comparing moving CCTV with an authenticated, reasonably contemporaneous still photograph of the defendant. Admissibility and safety depend on image quality, the circumstances, the directions given, and the evidence as a whole. A suitably tailored Turnbull direction remains appropriate where identification evidence carries a risk of mistake. More than one participant in group offending may have a leading role. Totality requires a just and proportionate sentence, not a discount for repeat offending.

The appellant was convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and two offences of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life. He challenged his conviction on the ground that the judge had wrongly permitted the jury to compare CCTV footage with photographs taken on his arrest. He also renewed an application for leave to appeal against an extended determinate sentence of 24 years, comprising 21 years' custody and a three-year extended licence period.

The conviction appeal concerned the scope of permissible photographic identification evidence and the adequacy of the jury directions. The sentence application concerned the appellant's role in group offending, an uplift reflecting a separate weapons-conspiracy conviction, and alleged disparity with a co-defendant's sentence.

1. Conviction appeal dismissed. The categories identified in Attorney General's Reference No 2 of 2002 [2003] 1 Cr App R 21 were not exhaustive. That case was not binding authority for the wider proposition that crime-scene film or photographs could support identification only in one of the four stated ways.
2. There was no rigid rule preventing a jury from comparing moving CCTV with a still photograph of the defendant. The legitimacy and safety of that comparison depended on the facts. A photograph might be too blurred, old or otherwise defective to provide an adequate comparator, but a clear, authenticated and reasonably contemporaneous image could be a better comparator than the defendant's appearance in court.
3. On the evidence, the high-definition colour footage, lighting, clear facial images, authenticated custody photographs and the defendant's appearance in court provided legitimate sources of comparison. The jury also had other evidence capable of supporting or undermining identification, including phone, cell-site, ANPR and man-bag evidence. The judge's identification directions, including warnings of the risks of mistaken identification and a direction to acquit unless sure, were appropriate. The conviction was safe.
4. Sentence application refused. More than one participant in group offending may have a leading role. The judge was entitled to treat the appellant's role as leading and to apply the category 1A starting point under the Firearms Offences Guideline. The separate Woolwich weapons offence justified a five-year concurrent uplift. Totality required no more than a just and proportionate sentence; it did not confer a bulk discount on repeat offenders.
5. Alleged disparity with a co-defendant did not make the sentence excessive. Differences may be factually justified, and, where Sentencing Guidelines have been faithfully applied, it will be rare for comparison with another sentence to establish excessiveness.

• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: the appellant was convicted on 16 September 2020. He was sentenced on 5 November 2021 to an extended determinate sentence of 24 years, comprising 21 years' custody and a three-year extended licence period.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the conviction appeal was dismissed and the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.