R v Hersey
1998 · Crim LR 281
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Two men robbed the victims while wearing balaclavas, so the victims could not see a face on which to make a visual identification. One robber talked for about fifteen minutes. The prosecution relied on voice identification: a parade of twelve voices, a , and an expert who said the pitch and the reading style singled the accused out. He was .
- Issue
- Do the govern identification by voice?
- Held
- The Court of Appeal held that they do not. Voice identification was admissible on these facts. The caution a tribunal should feel is real, but it is not the Turnbull direction.
- Principle
- Turnbull is a rule for disputed visual identification. A voice is a different kind of evidence, and it is tested by its own safeguards, including a parade and, where it helps, an expert.
- Why it matters
- It stops Turnbull being applied to every identification.
Words and Latin in this note
- Turnbull guidelines
- The warning a judge must give where a criminal case depends wholly or substantially on a disputed visual identification. A convincing witness can still be mistaken. A poor identification without support is withdrawn from the jury. Open the note.
- Voir dire
- A trial within a trial. The judge hears evidence in the absence of the jury, often to decide whether a piece of evidence is admissible, and then rules. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.