LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Identification – Quality of Identification Evidence – Test Laid Down in Turnbull’s Case
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The evidence available in this case met the standard laid down in such cases as Turnbull v. The Queen (1976) 63 Criminal Appeal Reports 132 at p. 137, State v. Aibangbee & Anor. (1988) 3 NWLR (pt.84) 548 and Igbi v. The State (2000) FWLR 358, (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt.648)169. PW1 not only claimed she knew the appellant, the latter admitted this and went on to say that their relationship had been a close one over a period.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Olalekan v. State (2001) NLC-2041999(SC) at p. 6; Paras C–D.
"The evidence available in this case met the standard laid down in such cases as Turnbull v. The Queen (1976) 63 Criminal Appeal Reports 132 at p. 137, State v. Aibangbee & Anor. (1988) 3 NWLR (pt.84) 548 and Igbi v. The State (2000) FWLR 358, (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt.648)169. PW1 not only claimed she knew the appellant, the latter admitted this and went on to say that their relationship had been a close one over a period."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Turnbull’s case establishes the standard for identification evidence: the court must examine the quality of the identification, considering the witness’s opportunity to observe, lighting, distance, duration, and prior acquaintance. Where the witness knew the accused previously and the accused admits the relationship, the identification evidence is strong. Poor quality identification (e.g., fleeting glance) requires corroboration or withdrawal from the jury. The court must warn itself of the special need for caution. Prior acquaintance significantly enhances reliability. The judge should identify any weaknesses in the identification evidence. This protects against mistaken identity convictions.