LT, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 58 (31 January 2019)

LT, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 58 (31 January 2019)

The exclusion of the identification evidence was an error of principle because the circumstances did not present a significant risk of contamination or unfairness; the identification was made before any influence by AH, and the weaknesses in the process were matters for the jury to assess. The evidence should have been admitted, and the proceedings in the Crown Court should resume.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Crim 58
Parties
Applicant: Regina; Respondent: LT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Application for Leave to Appeal Evidentiary Ruling Under Part 9 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome
Appeal allowed; exclusion of identification evidence overturned; proceedings to resume in Crown Court.
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Exclusion of Evidence, Section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Facebook/social Media Identification, Fairness of Proceedings
Criminal Law Evidence Identification Evidence Exclusion of Evidence Section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Facebook/social Media Identification Fairness of Proceedings

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Applicant

LT

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Application for Leave to Appeal Evidentiary Ruling Under Part 9 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of identification evidence obtained via Facebook was correct under s.78 PACE 1984
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances of the identification process rendered the evidence inadmissible or merely affected its weight

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of the identification evidence was an error of principle because the circumstances did not present a significant risk of contamination or unfairness; the identification was made before any influence by AH, and the weaknesses in the process were matters for the jury to assess. The evidence should have been admitted, and the proceedings in the Crown Court should resume.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; exclusion of identification evidence overturned; proceedings to resume in Crown Court.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Ruling excluding identification evidence set aside.