THE IDENTIFICATION OF PRISONERS. lTo THE EDITOR or THE "
EDICT/410Ln SIR,—The Spectator is so conspicuously fair in all its comments that perhaps I may be pardoned for asking on what investigation into the existing system of identification the editorial note to " C. H. G.'s " letter of last week is based. Had inquiry been made of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, for instance, the Police instructions, which many of your readers may be glad to see, would have been found to
be these :—
" Whenever it is necessary to effect the recognition of an accused in police custody by persons competent to identify him, every precaution will be taken that such identification is carried out fairly, the following directions being carefully observed:— (a) The officer in charge of the case against the prisoner, though present, will take no part in the particular proceedings connected with the identification, which will be carried out by the officer on duty in charge of the station or court.
(b) The witnesses must not be allowed to see the prisoner before he is placed with others for the purpose of identification, nor should they be shown photographs or be assisted by verbal or written description of him.
(c) Before the witnesses are brought into the presence of the prisoner, he should be placed among a number of persons, eight or more, if practicable, for purposes of identification. In selecting such persons care is to be taken that they are as far as possible of similar age, height, general appearance, and class of life as the prisoner. Police officers must not be utilised for this purpose.
(d) The accused should then be invited to stand where he pleases among them and not be allotted a special position. He will also be asked if he has objection to take to any of the persons or arrangements made. If he desires to have present at the identification, his solicitor, or any friend actually in attendance, no objection is to be made by police, whose chief care it must be to see that the proceedings are so conducted that it cannot be subsequently alleged that they are otherwise than fair and straightforward.
(e) The witnesses should then be introduced one by one for the purpose of recognising the accused, and they should be asked to touch the person they identify. On leaving they will not be allowed to communicate with other witnesses who are in waiting. The accused is to be permitted to change his position if he so desires after each witness has left.
(f) Every circumstance connected with the identification is to be carefully noted down by the officer who carries it out, whether the accused be identified or not, and care must be taken when a witness fails to recognise the accused that the fact is recorded as carefully as when he is identified ; the names and addresses of those who fail to identify, as well as those who identify being taken down. Any statement made by the prisoner should be recorded at once and read over to the officer in charge of the case in the prisoner's hearing. The prisoner is to be invited to sign such statement."
Here is at least an endeavour after a fair and efficient method of identification which, if not perfect, can scarcely be described as "clearly indefensible, if not farcical." Yet your remark is of general application. My personal experience is that police officers loyally carry out these orders. The fact that now and then one man may fail in his duty doea not necessarily condemn a system.—I am, Sir, to.,
Auni ALTNRAIE PARTEM.
[We admit that nothing could be better than the instructions quoted by our correspondent. Our doubt is whether in the very natural eagerness of the police to secure a conviction they observe them in the spirit. Possibly we wrote too strongly, but we cannot help thinking that too much weight is given in the Courts to identification evidence.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
