CRIMINAL LAW — Identification Evidence — Prior Knowledge of Accused — When Identification Parade is Unnecessary
Principle Statement
Where the accused person and the victims of the offence knew themselves before the alleged offence, identification was merely superfluous. Having known them before the incident and having seen them in bright lights unmasked, I am satisfied that the said witnesses properly identified the accused persons as those who robbed their house on the night of 10th September, 2000. An identification parade was therefore unnecessary.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Tabai, JSC, in Sunday v. State (2010) NLC-123-46-2009(SC) at pp. 15–16; Paras A–C.
"Where the accused person and the victims of the offence knew themselves before the alleged offence, identification was merely superfluous. Having known them before the incident and having seen them in bright lights unmasked, I am satisfied that the said witnesses properly identified the accused persons as those who robbed their house on the night of 10th September, 2000. An identification parade was therefore unnecessary."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that an identification parade is unnecessary where the accused and victim knew each other before the offence. The principle applies where prior knowledge exists. It ensures that identification is not required where recognition suffices. The principle reflects that recognition is more reliable. It prevents unnecessary identification parades. The court must determine if the parties knew each other. The principle provides guidance on the necessity of identification parades.
