LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Identification Evidence – Uncorroborated Identification – Duty of Trial Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the only evidence of identification is uncorroborated, the trial judge must warn himself of the danger of mistaken identification; only in exceptional circumstances should a conviction based on such evidence be upheld without such warning.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Dogo & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-442000(SC) at p. 27; Paras A–B.
"Where the only evidence of identification connecting the appellants to the crime is uncorroborated, the trial judge should have warned himself of the danger of a mistaken identification and only in the most exceptional circumstances should a conviction based on uncorroborated identification evidence be upheld in the absence of such warning."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
In cases where identification is the sole evidence linking the accused to the crime, the trial judge must warn themselves of the danger of mistaken identification. Failure to give such a warning may render the conviction unsafe. The warning should be explicit in the judgment. Only in exceptional circumstances can a conviction based on uncorroborated identification be upheld without the warning. The principle is based on the Turnbull guidelines. The judge must also examine the quality of the identification evidence—was the opportunity to observe adequate? The warning ensures that the judge applies special caution. The rule protects against miscarriages of justice.