R v Blenkinsop

R v Blenkinsop

 [1995] 1 Cr App Rep 7

 

Court: CA

Judgment Date: circa 1995

Catchwords & Digest

 

 

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE–IDENTIFICATION–PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION–PHOTOGRAPHS OR VIDEO RECORDING–APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO JURY

The appellant and 23 other people were charged with violent disorder following an incident at a demonstration. Although the appellant admitted that he had been present and had taken part in the demonstration, he argued that it had not been proved that he was one of those who had actively taken part in the violence that had occurred. The prosecution evidence consisted of a photograph of the appellant taken by the police when he was arrested the day after the demonstration, and of a video recording and still photographs taken at the time of the demonstration. It was alleged that the person shown in the still photographs was the appellant, and that the police photograph showed the same person who was in the still photographs. On his appeal against conviction, the appellant argued that the judge had not given a sufficient direction to the jury on the identification evidence and, in particular, that he had failed to give a full Turnbull warning. Held, where the identification of a defendant was by photographs or a video recording rather than by witness identification, one of the matters which a jury had to decide was whether the person shown committing the offence in the photographs or video recording was the same person whom they saw in court. In that respect, they had to decide whether or not the defendant’s appearance had changed since the recording was made. A full Turnbull direction was only necessary and appropriate in the case of a witness identification. In the case of a photographic identification, the direction had to conform with Dodson. There was also a general requirement that a jury had to be warned of the risk of mistaken identification and of the need for care when making an identification. Here, the judge had given a proper direction in respect of not only the police photograph but also the still photographs and the video recording. He had also told the jury that they were to ignore the photographs if they were not satisfied that the person shown in them was the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal would be dismissed.

 

Cases referring to this case

Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS

Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)

Treatment	Case Name	Citations	Court	Date	CaseSearch
Applied	R v Ali	[2008] EWCA Crim 1522,  [2009] Crim LR 40,  [2008] All ER (D) 230 (Jul)	CACrimD	17/07/2008	CaseSearch Entry
Considered	A-G’s Reference (No 2 of 2002)	[2002] EWCA Crim 2373,  [2003] 1 Cr App Rep 321,  [2003] Crim LR 192,  (2002) Times,  17 October,  [2002] All ER (D) 73 (Oct)	CACrimD	07/10/2002	CaseSearch Entry
Considered	R v Stevens	[2002] NI 361	NICA	05/07/2002	CaseSearch Entry

 

Document information

 

Court

Court of Appeal

Judgment date

circa 1995