Identification and care warnings

●    The general rule is that one piece of evidence is sufficient to convict but there are statutory exceptions to this where there is a need for corroboration, eg s13 Perjury Act 1911.

●  The common law obligatory requirement for corroboration warnings in the case of certain categories of witnesses such as children was repealed in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) 1994. The emphasis now in looking for supportive evidence is more on the strength or otherwise of the evidence rather than the intrinsic nature of the witness.

●  Identification evidence has historically given rise to miscarriages of justice. Honest witnesses may be mistaken; voice identification poses even more challenges than visual.

●  Code D PACE 1984 sets out the mandatory pre-trial requirements for gathering evidence of identification and although it covers all forms of identification of suspects, it has been applied more coherently to visual identification.

●  There is a requirement for the judge to give a direction (a Turnbull warning) of the need for care in cases of disputed identification.

●  In cases where lies (in or out of court) told by the accused are presented as suggestive of guilt, the judge should give a ‘care warning’ (a Lucas direction).

●  The judge has discretion to issue a care warning if there is reason to believe the witness might be unreliable.

Questioning at Trial

●    The witnesses are allowed to refresh their memory from documents under ss120 and 139 Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003.

●  Previous consistent statements are inadmissible unless there is a statutory or common law exception.

●  Parties are not allowed to cross examine their own witnesses except with leave of the judge under s3 Criminal Procedure Act 1865 in cases where the witness changes their evidence from statements made pre-trial.

●  There are statutory limits on cross examination of complainants in cases involving sexual offences, see ss41–43 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (YJCEA) 1999.

●  Previous inconsistent statements of the witness may be admissible under ss4 and 5 Criminal Procedure Act 1865.

●  A witness’s answers to a collateral question should be treated as final though there are exceptions.