CRIMINAL LAW — Identification Evidence — Recognition — Reliability of Recognition by Witness Who Knows Accused Before Incident
Principle Statement
Recognition of an accused person by a witness who knew them before the incident is generally more reliable than identification of a stranger. However, the court must still caution itself that even close relatives and friends can make mistakes in recognition.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Aderemi, JSC, in Ndidi v. State (2007) NLC-123-128-2005(SC) at pp. 12–13; Paras D–A.
"Recognition (which translates to evidence of visual observation) is regarded as one of the guidelines laid down in R. v. Turnbull (supra). In Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (1993) Volume 1 Paragraph 14 - 4 which is a confirmation of what I have said, reads: 'The following guidelines which are to be observed by trial judges when 'identity' is an issue, were laid down by the Court of Appeal (England a five-judge court) in R. v. Turnbull & Ors 63 CR. APP. P.132 at 137 - 140. ... C. Recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger; but even when the witness is purporting to recognise someone whom he knows, the jury should be reminded that mistakes in recognition of close relatives and friends are sometimes made.'"
Explanation / Scope
The principle adopts the English case of R. v. Turnbull as a guide for evaluating identification evidence. Recognition, where the witness knew the accused before the incident, is considered more reliable than identification of a stranger because it is based on familiarity. However, the court must still exercise caution and remind itself that even recognition can be mistaken. Factors such as the length of acquaintance, the circumstances of the observation, the distance, lighting, and the witness’s state of mind must be considered. The court must also consider whether the witness had any motive to falsely identify the accused. The principle applies to all criminal trials where identity is in issue. The judge must give adequate reasons for accepting or rejecting recognition evidence. The failure to do so may render the conviction unsafe.
