Lauren Jervis Contribution To The Court Of Appeal (COA)

This essay will advise Mr Robert Solomon (RS) on the grounds that he may be able to appeal on to the Court of Appeal (COA). The specific issue is that there was an error in the Crown Court Judge’s summing concerning breaches of PACE Code D in relation to the identification by Lauren Jervis (LJ) not being drawn to the jury’s attention.

There is not an issue over RS requiring leave and he will be able to present his appeal. The COA will ‘allow the appeal if the conviction is unsafe’ which will result in a conviction being quashed or a re-trial ordered or alternatively the appeal being dismissed. Cooper is useful to interpret unsafe identifying that it is a lurking doubt about any injustice. Things that may cause a lurking doubt include

Accordingly, this is recognised as one of the exceptions in paragraph 3.12. However, RS could argue that it would have served a useful purpose for the following reasons;

Firstly, LJ’s identification is a substantial part of evidence to prove that RS was the suspect involved in the offence yet, it was not tested or questioned. Failing to do an identification parade is significant because witness David Cariss attended one but, failed to identify RS. However, because this is a case of recognition the risk is not that LJ would similarly pick out the wrong person at an identification parade but, that she was mistaken when recognising RS when witnessing the offence.

Secondly, although LJ identified someone she recognised, mistakes can still be made even in cases of ‘close relatives and friends’. The Devlin Report talks of ‘the extent to which a man may deceive himself’ and interaction between witnesses and suspects can distort recollections. Therefore, an Identification parade would have been useful to test the reliability of the identification

There is in fact a growing recognition of the inherent unreliability of identification evidence and it is ‘by far the greatest cause of actual or possible wrong convictions’. Therefore, an identification parade would have protected RS against the risk of a mistaken identification . Additionally, an identification parade would have strengthened the prosecution case and RS’s identification would not be in dispute .

Identification evidence can be excluded because of a breach of the Code but, it will be up to the Judge’s discretion. If identification evidence is still admitted, then the Judge should draw any breaches to the Jury’s attention when summing up because of the effect it can have on the reliability and weight of evidence. The Judge should explain the breach inviting them ‘to consider the possible effects of that breach’ and direct them to attach the necessary weight they think is