REGINA v ELIJAH MORGAN

Recognition evidence from footage may be admitted where a witness who knows the defendant identifies him from footage of sufficient quality. Procedural breaches in the identification process do not automatically require exclusion under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Their effect may instead be assessed by the jury as a question of weight. A case may properly remain with the jury where the recognition evidence, considered with supporting evidence and appropriate cautionary directions, could safely sustain a conviction.

The applicant was convicted unanimously at the Central Criminal Court of murder and possession of a bladed article. The prosecution alleged that he was one of four men who stabbed the deceased. Its evidence included taxi dash-cam footage and the recognition evidence of PC Barton, who knew the applicant from previous police contact.

The trial judge admitted PC Barton's evidence despite procedural breaches in the identification process and rejected a submission of no case to answer. The applicant sought an extension of time to renew his application for permission to appeal after the single judge's refusal. He contended that the recognition evidence should have been excluded under section 78 and that the case should have been withdrawn from the jury.

1. The court extended time by six days, but refused permission to appeal. There was no reason to doubt the safety of the convictions.
2. The trial judge was entitled to admit PC Barton's recognition evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The footage was sufficiently clear to permit identification. PC Barton already knew the applicant, and the case fell within the category identified in Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2002) [2002] EWCA Crim 2373, where a witness knows the defendant sufficiently well to recognise the person depicted.
3. The failures to comply with the relevant identification procedures, including the absence of records and PC Barton's comparison with a custody photograph, went to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility on the circumstances of this case. They could be explored before, and evaluated by, the jury.
4. The judge also correctly rejected the submission of no case to answer. PC Barton's evidence was capable of being reliable, the footage could be assessed by the jury, and other evidence supported the prosecution case. A jury could safely convict on one view of the evidence.
5. The summing-up adequately addressed the procedural breaches, the need for caution in assessing identification evidence, and the limited relevance of the applicant's previous police contact. There was no deficiency in the legal directions and no unfair prejudice.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2022] EWCA Crim 504, the court extended time to renew the application for permission to appeal, but refused permission because the convictions were safe.
• Central Criminal Court: The applicant was convicted unanimously of murder and possession of a bladed article. He received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 28 years for murder, with a concurrent sentence for the bladed-article offence.