Identification evidences can be described in this way – ‘I saw him do it.’ This is quite straightforward. That means, suppose a person is accused of committing any offense. Now, suppose while committing the offense, somehow he got caught in other’s eye
That means any other person saw the convicted person to commit any offense in his own eyes. That means, then that person becomes an eye-witness of that crime. And that thing he proves in the court will be considered as an identification evidence. In some cases, identification evidences can be considered as the main evidence if none other found and the decision is also given based on the decision that jury has made considering the identification evidence. One thing also remains same as before, the evidence should be relevant.
There are two types of court identifications. One is in court identifications, another is out court identifications. In court evidences occur after the Evidence Act. Visual identification will not suffice until an identification parade goes on considering the fact that any kind of hold in line-up will not be reasonable any more. It will also suffice if the defendant refuses to take part in the line-up. For establishing that it was not judicious to hold a line-up, the Crown must establish that it was unreasonable to hold a line-up until the reasonably proximate time of the trial. If the only evidence against the accused the on spot court identification by a person who is not directly familiar with the accused person, it would be risky to convict because of some safety measures and protocols.
Now out court identification will be established when it will be proved by some sort of evidence that the person accused who has been identified by any other person working as the witness is outside of the court. For example, to establish an out court identification, it can be proved that the person accused was in the streets or in any near police station shortly after the offense occurs.
According to Photofiles provision which has taken place before the evidence act, if a witness becomes able to pick up a photo of the defendant from a photofile at a time when the defendant is already a suspect in the matter, the photofile evidence can be rejected as a matter of discretion. But noteworthy here is that there is no strict rule there regarding these facts. The Instructions say as a general guideline, photographs of an arrested person should not be showed to a witness until any urgent matter comes by. The actual words used by the witness should be recorded for further proceedings.
Now for the Photofiles which is taken place after the evidence act, photo-identification is not admissible at all if when the photographs were examined the defendant was in the custody of any police officer of the police force investigating the offence unless the defendant refused to take part in a line-up or it would not be reasonable at all to hold a line-up. And also it will not be according to the law.
There are also some related facts such as – multiple identifications, discretions to exclude, jury directions, cross-racial id, voice identifications etc
Disclaimer : This article is just a summary of the subject matter being discussed and should not be regarded as a comprehensive legal advice for you to defend yourself alone. If you are charged with criminal offences, it is recommended that you seek legal assistance from criminal lawyers.