R v Sarkaut Yasen

In an identification case, a positive VIPER identification following a lengthy opportunity to observe, coupled with circumstantial support, will ordinarily be left to the jury where the procedure is not challenged. Weaknesses such as intoxication, mistakes about height or weight, or confusion about an associated location ordinarily affect weight rather than the existence of a case to answer. An unrelated mistaken identification in different circumstances is irrelevant to the reliability of the identification in issue. A summing-up must fairly identify material weaknesses and summarise relevant evidence, but need not rehearse every detail or repeat matters already covered.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Leeds of trafficking within the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation and three counts of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring rape. He was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. Ground 1 challenged the refusal of a submission of no case to answer based on the quality of the complainant’s identification evidence. Grounds 2 and 3 concerned the exclusion of evidence of an unrelated mistaken identification and the adequacy of the summing-up concerning the Red Shop. Permission was granted on Ground 1. Permission on Grounds 2 and 3 was sought at the hearing.

The appeal on Ground 1 was dismissed. Permission to appeal on Grounds 2 and 3 was refused. The conviction was safe.

1. No case to answer. The question was whether the identification evidence was so flawed and inherently unreliable that it could not properly be left to a jury. The complainant had made a positive VIPER identification after a prolonged opportunity to observe the appellant in daylight. The procedure was not challenged, and there was circumstantial support from locations connected with the alleged offending. The appellant therefore faced a high hurdle, particularly on appeal given the trial judge’s fuller knowledge of the evidence and context.
2. Intoxication, discrepancies concerning height and weight, and confusion about surrounding events were matters going to the weight and reliability of the identification. The Red Shop evidence did not directly connect the appellant with that location. Any confusion about when the shop opened was consequently irrelevant to the accuracy of the positive identification and had not contaminated it.
3. Previous identification. An earlier incorrect identification of an unrelated volunteer, made at a different time and in different circumstances, was irrelevant to the reliability of the identification in issue. The standard direction that honest witnesses can make identification mistakes required no supporting evidence from another case. The trial judge was right to distinguish R v Stewart [2012] EWCA Crim 2488. Exclusion was also justified as case management because admission would have created collateral satellite issues.
4. Summing-up. The judge had to identify the admitted confusion about the Red Shop and summarise at least some of the relevant evidence. He did so in the legal directions and evidential summary. A judge need not set out every piece of evidence on every point or repeat matters already fairly covered: see R v Reynolds [2019] EWCA Crim 2145. The summing-up was balanced and fair.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Permission was granted on Ground 1, but the appeal was dismissed. Permission to appeal on Grounds 2 and 3 was refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 452.
• Crown Court at Leeds: The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. The lower-court citation was not stated in the judgment.