JUDGE CENSURES POLICE

Chronicle (Levin), 9 July 1949, Page 5

JUDGE CENSURES POLICE

P.ress AssoGiation)

Methods In Identification * ti l CH{je|sfd

($er

. -WELLIAGT.GX, July 8. Censure of tlie methoh used by the A}ic)ctand policq ip arranging an ipqntiflcation parade for t\yq men suspectecl of committing serioup ofi'ences is.conin a ju^gmqnt qf the Cquft of Appeal today by tiib Ghj.ef Justiee," Sir Humphrqy .(j 'Lqary. pjie appeal was brought by ?jeith Victpr Jefferies fig^insp hjs coifyictipji with a map ealtea Pfatt to five years' inigrisonment with bq,rJ labpjjj- fqr rpbbery with vioience. ' • , 1 ■ The identification parade took place about mjdpigKt in the ATP^IflTd poliee station after Jeffieries gncl Pratt had been arresfed ig Auckjapd op suspieion of attackjng Clarep.ce Johp Williams, a taxi-driyer," apd as.s.aulting pnd rpbbj.ng hinj. _• "What was. termed an identiflcation parade consiste^ qf the two aceused be-i-ng placed in a room along with eight qthpr men all in eiviliah ciothes but seyen of whom were policemen," says the judgment." "'The two aecused had blopdstains on their clo'thes and certainly' had blood on their hands, and it was said that their elothes were old. Before being called on to identify, Williams had been informed that two men had been arrested. "Ail the details of the" circumstances of the identiflcation were freelv given by the detective chieflv concerned, and ' there was no doubt that the niethqd adopted was not in accordanee with recogmsed p'ractice, but possibly was conJ ti'ibuted"to by the fact that it tpoK 1 place some time about midn.ight wnep the assembling of suitable personnel would- be difficult. " The judgment added that the qnly satisfactory method of identification where suspects. jvere paraded was where the suspects wrere plapqd amongst a sufficiently large number of persops or similah age, of build and copdifion ot life and clothing, and the witness was then asked without promptipg or assistance to reeognise the offeqder. His Honopr added that if there haa not been proper direetion at the tj'iaJ as to the weight and foree of the evidenee of identification it might well have been that there was sueh a misearrfage of justiee as to demand the quashing or the c'onvicjfion. Xt was plain, however, from tlie evidenee that the method of identification and the complete facts were before the jury. No doubt they were fully eanvassed by counsel for the defenoe, apd there was no • suggestion that there was not a fair and' proper direetion from the presiding judge .which would ip.clude a warning as to i the danger of deciaing on identification glone, particularly because of the me.thod employe'd. ' The appeal was dismissed.