# Identification parades upholding the integrity of the criminal justice process?

Tinley, Yvette Marie (2001). Identification parades upholding the integrity of the criminal justice process? University of Birmingham. Ph.D.

 Preview
Tinsley01PhD.pdf
PDF

## Abstract

Evidence from eyewitnesses is often the starting point for police investigations and it is estimated that it plays an important role in one quarter of all contested Crown Court cases. However, the memory is a fragile and malleable instrument which can produce unreliable yet convincing evidence. Because mistaken witnesses can be both honest and compelling, the risk of wrongful conviction in eyewitness identification cases is high, as is illustrated in a number of famous miscarriages of justice. This thesis assesses the sufficiency of the protections offered to defendants in cases involving eyewitness identification by examining psychological research on memory, police procedures for the collection of evidence from eyewitnesses, and judicial discretion to exclude unreliable evidence found in $$R$$ $$v$$ $$Turnbull$$ and section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. In interview, startling levels of guessing were reported by witnesses attending identification procedures; and suspects were largely unaware of their rights. Current identification procedures are time-consuming and inefficient; and psychological research offers some guidance but few answers, precluding the usefulness of expert evidence. The thesis concludes that an increase in specialised identification officers, reform of procedures to allow for greater use of video identification, guidelines on the exercise of discretion under s.78, and judicial education regarding the importance of using a comprehensive $$Turnbull$$ direction are required before an adequate level of procedural and evidential protection against erroneous identification can be offered to suspects.

Type of Work: Thesis (Doctorates > Ph.D.) Doctorates > Ph.D. Schools (1998 to 2008) > School of Law Faculty of Law None/not applicable K Law > KD England and Wales http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/5355

### Actions

 Request a Correction View Item