References: [2002] EWHC 2175 (Admin), (2002) 166 JP 753
Links: Bailii
Coram: Stanley Burnton J
Ratio: The defendant appealed by case stated against a decision of the Crown Court on appeal rejecting his assertion that he had not been proved to have been driving a car on the occasion when the offences occurred. The court had allowed a dock identification by a police officer, who said that he had spoken to the driver for about 5 minutes.
Held: There had been no prior indication that identity was an issue, and the failure to carry out an ID parade before the trial was proper. There was no basis upon which any could have been ordered, and ‘The evidence before the Crown Court was more than sufficient to justify the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal before it, without having regard to the dock identification.’
The court noted that it would be wrong to commence an identification procedure after the commencement of the trial.
This case cites:
- Cited – Regina v Manchester Coroner, ex parte Tal ([1985] QB 67)
The court asked whether the Divisional Court was bound by previous decisions of that court, and answered: ‘we find it difficult to imagine that a single judge exercising this (supervisory) jurisdiction (of the High Court) would ever depart from a . . - Cited – Barnes v Chief Constable of Durham Admn (Bailii, [1997] EWHC Admin 408, [1997] 2 Cr App R 505, (1998) 162 JP 126)
The defendant was prosecuted for a driving offence. No identification parade had been held, and he was identified in the dock at court.
Held: Despite the firmly-rooted hostility to dock identifications in the Crown Court, they are permitted in . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 21 March 2020
Ref: 460349 br>
The post Karia, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 10 Oct 2002 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.