R v Enes Ulas

Identification evidence from scene images may be admitted from a witness who did not previously know the defendant where the witness has studied and analysed the images sufficiently to acquire special knowledge capable of assisting the jury. The necessary extent of study is fact-sensitive and no fixed minimum period applies.

Improperly disclosed or inadmissible material does not invariably require a jury to be discharged. A clear, detailed and unequivocal direction may cure potential prejudice where it explains why the material is irrelevant and enables the trial to remain fair.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Kingston Upon Thames of wounding with intent, possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, and violent disorder. He received a total sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that he was the person shown in CCTV images carrying an imitation firearm and stabbing the victim. Identification was central because he denied being present. He appealed with leave, challenging the admission of a police officer’s image-based identification, the refusal to discharge the jury after an officer mentioned a firearm found at a flat, and a further officer’s inadmissible opinion supporting the identification.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction was safe. None of the complaints, whether considered separately or together, provided a proper basis for finding it unsafe.
2. The court applied the photographic-image admissibility framework in Attorney General's Reference No 2 of 2002 [2002] EWCA Crim 2373. A witness who does not know the defendant may nevertheless assist a jury if study and analysis of the scene images has given the witness special knowledge which the jury does not possess.
3. The trial judge was entitled to infer that PC Christie had analysed the images as part of a Code D identification exercise and had acquired a degree of relevant special knowledge, including knowledge of distinctive facial features. The amount of study required depends on the circumstances. There is no fixed minimum period. It would have been preferable for the officer to give fuller detail, but the evidence permitted the inference drawn.
4. The summing-up, read as a whole, correctly required caution over identification. The jury were directed both on the limits of PC Christie’s evidence and on their own comparison of the CCTV material, custody photographs and other evidence.
5. The reference to a firearm found in Flat 21 was improperly before the jury and carried a potential risk of prejudice. However, the trial judge’s detailed direction was sufficient. It made clear that there was no evidence connecting that firearm with the incident, either defendant, or either defendant’s knowledge. The direction therefore prevented the jury from using it on the identification issue.
6. DC Dawson’s opinion that PC Christie’s identification was correct was inadmissible. The immediate and unequivocal direction to disregard it adequately cured any prejudice and did not elevate PC Christie’s admissible evidence. The court upheld the trial judge’s approach to fairness under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction: [2023] EWCA Crim 82.
• Crown Court at Kingston Upon Thames — convicted the appellant on 21 April 2022 and imposed a total sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.