Bogie, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1280 (03 November 2023)

Bogie, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1280 (03 November 2023)

Despite multiple and significant breaches of Code D, the recognition evidence was not inherently poor, detailed explanations were provided at voir dire, and the jury could assess the evidence themselves. The judge's careful directions and the ability of the jury to compare images with the appellant ensured fairness. The conviction was therefore safe.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 1280
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: William Bogie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Crown Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, PACE Code D Breaches, Admissibility of Evidence, Recognition by Police Officers, Section 78 PACE, Submission of No Case to Answer
Criminal Law Identification Evidence PACE Code D Breaches Admissibility of Evidence Recognition by Police Officers Section 78 PACE Submission of No Case to Answer

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

William Bogie

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether breaches of PACE Code D by police in recognition evidence rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether CCTV stills from lost footage should have been excluded under section 78 PACE
  3. 3 Whether the case should have been withdrawn from the jury for lack of supporting evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Despite multiple and significant breaches of Code D, the recognition evidence was not inherently poor, detailed explanations were provided at voir dire, and the jury could assess the evidence themselves. The judge's careful directions and the ability of the jury to compare images with the appellant ensured fairness. The conviction was therefore safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.