R v Turnbull

Ratio Decidendi

Facts

R v Turnbull was heard with several conjoined appeals in which the convictions rested wholly or substantially on disputed visual identification evidence — including 'fleeting glimpse' sightings and claimed recognition of the accused. Against the background of well-known miscarriages of justice caused by honest but mistaken identification, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to lay down general guidance on how trial judges should handle such evidence.

Judgment Summary

Lord Widgery CJ, giving the judgment of a five-member Court of Appeal, laid down what became the 'Turnbull guidelines'. Whenever the prosecution case depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of one or more identifications which the defence disputes, the judge must (a) warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting in reliance on identification evidence, (b) explain why such caution is needed — that a mistaken witness can nonetheless be a convincing one, and that several witnesses can all be mistaken — and (c) direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which each identification was made: the length of the observation, the distance, the lighting, any obstruction, whether the witness already knew the accused, the time between observation and identification, and any material discrepancy between the description first given and the accused's actual appearance. Where the identification evidence is of poor quality and unsupported, the judge should withdraw the case from the jury. The guidelines remain the standard direction for disputed identification evidence.

Key Quotes

Subsequent Treatment