Man found Not Guilty Robbery - Wood Green Crown Court 2023

Our client was charged with Robbery of a Rolex watch, cash and phone at a nightclub. The prosecution’s case was that he and another assaulted the victim after they had been in the venue and they stole the items by robbery. The victim suffered a broken nose, fractured ribs and finger. The evidence the prosecution relied upon was CCTV which shows the males committing the assault and robbery outside the club. The prosecution relied upon the CCTV and evidence from the club. Our client was circulated as wanted and arrested. He gave a full comment interview denying the offence an indentification.The case resulted in a 14-day trial where our client was found not guilty by the jury. The co-defendant was found guilty and was not represented by us.

Identification & The Turnbull Guidelines

Background

The Court of Appeal in R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 prescribed rules to guide Judges faced with contested visual identification evidence. The guidelines are also applicable in cases of voice recognition or identification. The guidelines are aimed at assessing the quality of the identification.

Guidelines

1. When a case depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which the defence claims are mistaken, the judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the identification. In particular he should instruct them of the reason for the need for this warning and make some reference to the possibility that a mistaken witness can be a convincing witness and that a number of witnesses can all be mistaken. There is no prescribed form of words.
2. The judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification by each witness came to be made. This may include asking themselves the following questions:

How long did the witness have the accused under observation? At what distance?  In what light?

Was the observation impeded in any way e.g. by traffic or other people?

Had the witness ever seen the accused before? If so, how often? If only occasionally, had he any special reason for remembering the accused?

How long had elapsed between the original observation and the subsequent identification to the police?

Was there any material discrepancy between the description given by the witness and the actual appearance of the accused?

Where there is a material discrepancy the particulars should be provided to the defence and in all cases they should be supplied if requested.

1. The judge should remind the jury of any specific weaknesses in the identification evidence.
2. Recognition should be more reliable than identification of a stranger. However, juries should be reminded that mistakes can be made.
3. If the quality of the identification evidence is good and remains good to the end of the case, the danger of mistaken identification is lessened; but the poorer the quality, the greater the danger.
4. Where the quality is good, the jury can be safely left to assess the value of the identification evidence, even if there is no other supporting evidence, provided adequate warning has been given.
5. Where, in the judgement of the trial judge, the quality of the identifying evidence is poor (such as a fleeting glance or difficult conditions), the judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal, unless there is evidence that supports the correctness of the identification. The trial judge should identify to the jury the evidence he considers capable of supporting the identification evidence. If there is any evidence or circumstances that the jury might think was supporting when it didn’t have this quality, the judge should say so.  
6. Care should be taken by the judge when directing the jury about the support for an identification, which may be derived from the fact they have rejected an alibi. False alibis may be put forward for many reasons, including a truthful accused who worries that his own evidence will not be enough. Further, alibi witnesses can make genuine mistakes about dates and occasions, as any other witnesses can. It is only when the jury is satisfied that the sole reason for the fabrication was to deceive them and there is no other explanation for it being put forward, that fabrication can provide any support for identification evidence. The jury should be reminded that proving the accused has told lies about where he was at the material time does not by itself prove that he was where the identifying witness says he was.