The defendants had been seen on video. The prosecution sought to admit, in addition to the video evidence itself, evidence from police officers as to the identity of persons claimed to be shown on the tape. The officers evidence was offered but not accepted as expert evidence. The defendants said the tapes should have been left to speak for themselves.
Held: The officers’ evidence should have been accepted. Photographic evidence could be admitted in four situations, where the image itself was sufficiently clear to allow the jury to make its own direct comparison, where the witness himself knew the defendant, where the witness had spent sufficient time examining images from the scene to have acquired special knowledge, and where an expert with facial mapping skills could use the skills to assist the identification. The officers’ evidence could have been admitted.
Judges:
Rose, Pitchers, Treacy LLJ
Citations:
Times 17-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 2373, [2003] 1 Cr App R 321, [2003] Crim LR 192
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Clare, Regina v Peach CACD 7-Apr-1995
A Police Constable’s very detailed analysis of video evidence in a case made him an ad hoc expert on it.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ said: ‘The phrase ‘expert ad hoc’ seeks to put witnesses like Detective Parsons and PC Fitzpatrick into the . .
Cited – Taylor v Chief Constable of Chester 28-Oct-1986
Evidence as to the content of a video recording might be admissible even though the tape itself was not made available. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Atkins and Another v Regina CACD 2-Oct-2009
The court considered the use in evidence of facial photograph comparison techniques. The expert had given an opinion that the comparison gave support to a conclusion that the photograph in issue was of the defendant, but there was no database . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.177455
