Author: Adrian Ramdat (Director of Training & Consultancy)
January 2025
The case of R v Turnbull (1977) is a cornerstone of English criminal law, addressing the reliability and evaluation of eyewitness identification evidence. This case established key principles and safeguards to minimise the risk of wrongful convictions based on mistaken identification.
The Background
The case involved an appeal against a conviction where the primary evidence was an eyewitness identification. The appeal highlighted the risks of relying solely on such testimony, particularly when the circumstances of the identification were less than ideal.
In response, the Court of Appeal laid down detailed guidelines to help judges and juries assess the reliability of identification evidence. These are now known as the Turnbull guidelines.
Key Principles Established in R v Turnbull
The guidelines emphasise the need for caution when evaluating identification evidence and set out factors to consider:
Judicial Warning:
Judges must warn juries about the special need for caution with identification evidence, stressing that mistaken identification has led to wrongful convictions in the past.
Assessment of Conditions:
The reliability of identification depends on factors such as:
- How long the witness observed the suspect.
- The distance between the witness and the suspect.
- The quality of the lighting and visibility.
- Whether there were obstructions during the observation.
Supporting Evidence:
If identification evidence is weak and unsupported by other evidence, judges must advise the jury to consider this carefully. In some cases, they may direct the jury to acquit.
Role of Discrepancies:
Discrepancies between a witness’s initial description of the suspect and their appearance at the time of identification must be highlighted to the jury.
The ADVOKATE Framework
To aid in the practical application of the Turnbull guidelines, the ADVOKATE acronym was developed. It provides a structured approach for evaluating the reliability of eyewitness testimony and it is good practice to include in witness statements:
A – Amount of Time: How long was the suspect observed?
D – Distance: How far away was the witness?
V – Visibility: What were the lighting and visibility conditions?
O – Obstructions: Were there any obstructions to the view?
K – Known or Seen Before: Was the suspect previously known to the witness?
A – Any Reason to Remember: Was there something distinctive about the suspect?
T – Time Lapsed: How much time passed between the initial observation and subsequent identification?
E – Errors or Discrepancies: Were there inconsistencies in the witness’s description?
This framework ensures a systematic and thorough assessment of identification evidence.
Impact on Criminal Law
The principles established in R v Turnbull continue to play a pivotal role in criminal trials. The principles remind the courts of the dangers of over-reliance on eyewitness testimony and highlight the importance of corroborative evidence. These safeguards have provided protection against wrongful convictions based on mistaken identity.
Conclusion
The legacy of R v Turnbull is its emphasis on caution, fairness, and thoroughness in dealing with identification evidence. By applying these principles, the justice system aims to strike a balance between utilising eyewitness testimony and ensuring that convictions are based on reliable, robust evidence.
At The Signature Brand Training & Consultancy, we specialise in delivering training and consultancy services tailored to operational activities, ensuring professionals are equipped with the knowledge and skills to excel. Contact us today to learn how we can support your team in achieving operational excellence.
