R v DS [2014] EWCA Crim 933 (01 May 2014)

R v DS [2014] EWCA Crim 933 (01 May 2014)

The judge was entitled to admit the recognition evidence of PC Challis as it did not fall within the strict requirements of Code D for identification of a known suspect, and the jury could properly assess its reliability. There was sufficient identification evidence from Mrs Basey, supported by PC Challis, to leave...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Crim 933
Parties
Appellant: DS; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code D, Robbery, No Case to Answer Submission
Criminal Law Identification Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code D Robbery No Case to Answer Submission

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DS

Appellant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in admitting the recognition evidence of PC Challis under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Code D
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer based on the quality of identification evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to admit the recognition evidence of PC Challis as it did not fall within the strict requirements of Code D for identification of a known suspect, and the jury could properly assess its reliability. There was sufficient identification evidence from Mrs Basey, supported by PC Challis, to leave the case to the jury. The appeal was dismissed as there was no error in the judge's rulings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed