Q5. ELABORATE THE TURNBULLS GUIDELINES.

CASE: Reg v. Turnbull

[LORD WIDGERY C.J]
FACTS:
Defendants: Raymond Turnbull & Camelo were convicted for
committing burglary.
- Appealed against the conviction on the ground that the verdict of
the jury was unsatisfactory
- Dispute as to the accuracy of the identification there is a possibility
of a mistake because it was a fleeting glimpse.
- Claimed that identification of Turnbull was by a single detective
constable who knew him previously, who was in a moving car
looking across a road at night and who caught a glimpse of him as
he momentarily turned his head.
Defendant: Whitby robbery
- Appealed against the conviction
- Contended that the identification of him was unsatisfactory becasue,
of the three witnesses who identified him at the identification parade
had originally told the police that he could not describe or assess his
age, but had named the defendant before the parade. The second
witness had seen the robber alleged to be the df only from the rear
and the third witness had in his original statement given a
description of a man which in no way fitted the defendant.
Defendant: Robert unlawful wounding.
- The only evidence against him was the identification of two
witnesses made after the lapse of four and a half months. They had
given descriptions which were inconsistent with the defendants
descriptions
- The third witness had failed to pick out the defendant.
GUIDELINES
1) The need for the judge to warn the jury of the special need
for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the
correctness of the identififcation.
- when the case against an accused depends wholly or substantially
on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused
which the defence alleges to be mistaken
- Judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution.
- Plus, he should also instruct them as to the reasons for the need of
such a warning.

Should address the possibility that a mistaken witness can be a

convincing one and that even an honest witness can be a mistaken
witness.

2) The judge should direct the jury to examine closely the

circumstances in which the identification by each witness
came to be made.
- The jury must examine various specific matters that may affect the
strength or cogency of the evidence before them.
- Examples:
Amount of time the suspect was under observation by the witness. If
it was only a fleeting glance as opposed to a few minutes, a judge is
likely to be more skeptical of the evidence.
Distance between the suspect and the witness; if there was a great
distance between the eyewitness and the suspect or the crime
scene, less weight is likely to be given.
Visibility at the time the witness saw the suspect. The time of day
and thus the level of darkness is of importance. If the sighting was at
3am in pitch darkness, there is likely to be more doubt over an
accurate identification.
Obstructions between the suspect and the witness. The court will
take into account the general conditions that may have affected the
sighting, for instance, whether it was an extremely foggy day, or the
sighting took place in a crowded area, or there was a large obstacle
obstructing the view.
Knows the suspect or has seen him or her before. Here, the principle
of recognition comes into play. Recognition bear a higher probative
value than mere identification.
Any particular reason for the witness to remember the suspect. It
has to be taken into consideration whether the witness actually sees
the face of the accused. Often a witness may only see the back of
the accused in which case it will be easier for the accused to deny
that it was actually him.
Time lapse since the witness saw the suspect. The longer the time
lapse, the lower probative value attached to the witness statement.
Error or material discrepancy in the description given by the witness.
The court will observe on how close the description given by the
witness to the police actually matched the description of the
accused.
3) Should remind the jury of any specific weaknesses which had
appeared in the identification evidence.

***************************************************************************

All these matter relate to the quality and reliability of the

identififcation evidence. If the quality is good, and remains good at
the close of the accuseds case, the danger of mistaken
identification is lessened. But, the poorer the quality, the greater the
danger.
When the quality is good, the jury can be left to assess the value of
the evidence eventhough there is no other evidence to support it.
Provided always, adequate warning has been given about the special
need for caution.
However, where the quality is poor, the case should be withdrawn
from the jury unless there is other evidence capable of supporting
the correctness of the identification.
Failure to direct such warning may result in the conviction being
quashed as was held in the case of Jaafar bin Ali v. PP. The court
held that: where evidence of identification represents any
significant part of the proof of guilt in an offence, the judge must
warn the jury of the dangers of convicting on such evidence where
its reliability is disputed. The terms of the warning need not follow
any particular formula, but it must be cogent and effective and must
be appropriate to the circumstances of the particular case. The
failure to warn of the dangers of identification evidence may lead to
the ordering of new trials and the quashing of convictions.