Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
13 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Identification evidence |
* Testimony confirming the accused's presence or conduct * Historically considered high risk of unreliability, even when witness is honest * Cautionary rather than corroboration warning |
|
|
DPP v Mekonnen |
dependson context. If highly reliant on visual identification, may have to givecautionary. Also no need for pre-trial identification for recognition |
|
|
Admission |
* Little judicial attention * Not determined in voir dire, rather judge may have evidence already presented withdrawn |
|
|
R v Turnball |
(When quality of identification good (long observation, someone known to witness) jury can safely be left to assess value of identification evidence even though no other support, as long as accompanied by cautionary warning. But when quality is poor, judge must withdraw case and direct an acquittal unless other evidence supporting identification. Recognised distinction identification/recognition. Must also mention conditions of identification e.g. time/distance/weather |
|
|
Pre-trial identification |
* Identification parade * Dock identification |
|
|
DPP v O'Reilly |
Defines identification parade. 8 or 9 people of similar age, height, appearance, dress and walk in life as suspect. Must be supervised by Garda not involved in the investigation and that witness did not have any opportunity of seeing suspect in advance. Circumstances were not possible or practical e.g. if suspect of singular appearance, or suspect refuse to go along with it. Parade may be of vital importance for both D and P: If not picket out, prosecution may go no further, if picked out, may plead guilty. I.;4(xΔǽm\2E>3ga.ri |
|
|
DPP v Rapple |
Picking out someone in public place may be alternative if refuse to cooperate in parade |
|
|
DPP v Cooney |
accused is identified in courtroom rather than pre-trial, described as limited probative value and least favoured means of demonstration of identification B� |
|
|
Cautionary warning |
Juries may be unaware of dangers of identification or number of cases where witness may have been mistaken and may attribute to much probative effect of parade. Key is, does trial depend substantially on identification evidence, attention called to these factors mentioned. The strength of warning depends on facts of case. Including when witness does/doesn’t know the suspect) |
|
|
Five elements required for CW (Heffernan) |
1. General warning from Casey 2. Conditions of identification, time, whether, how long and distance (Turnball) 3. Must be informed about pre-trial procedure Special warning were no parade (DPP v McDermott) 4. Point out evidence may support identification (not mentioning corroboration) 5. Point out special features of the case DPP v Christo (should have told jury that race may complicate in this case) |
|
|
DPP v O'Donnavan |
several issues with this warning: 1. Consists of quotation from Casey, too stereotyped formula which was 2. Not related to facts of case here) |
|
|
Recognition evidence |
* Recognised someone they know (at a place/doing something) * Regarded as somewhat more reliable than visual identification, still Casey-warning though * Non need for pre-trial identification (DPP v Mekonnen) |
|
|
DPP v Smith |
distinction between recognition and identification but jury still needs to be reminded that mistakes can happen even as to friends/relatives/neighbours. Casey still needs to be followed though, degree depends on the case though w |
