The Turnbull Guidelines: A Question of Identification

Every now and then the court is called upon to determine whether a defendant has been correctly identified by an eye witness.

This situation could arise with pretty much any criminal allegation, but is quite common in cases where the defendant is accused of being in the wrong place at the wrong time - e.g. breaching the exclusion requirements of a court order.

In the absence of other evidence, these cases can hinge on the word of the eye witness. That could mean very serious consequences for the defendant, so it is important that the court gives very careful consideration to the witness's evidence.

The Turnbull guidelines, arising from the case of R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224, must be applied by the court whenever it considers identification evidence.

Raymond Turnbull and his partner in crime Joseph Camelo were Tyneside burglars. They perpetrated a scam whereby they would affix "out of order" notices to bank night safes. The notices directed customers to post their deposits through the bank's normal letterbox, which the pair had rigged with plastic bags they could recover later on.

One evening an eagle-eyed bank employee noticed that a bag had been affixed to the inside of the letterbox. The police and bank staff lay in wait to see who turned up to retrieve the bag. Turnbull was later seen reaching through the letterbox, but fled as soon as he was challenged. His description was circulated and the pair were arrested a short time later about a mile away. They were subsequently convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary by a jury at Newcastle Crown Court.

Turnbull appealed his conviction on the basis that the witness - who had a clearly lit, unobstructed view of him at less than 10 yards - had been mistaken with his identification. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court of Appeal quite satisfied, given the circumstances, that the witness was correct.

In the judgment Lord Widgery LCJ said that in cases involving identification evidence, the jury must carefully consider the following:

• For how long did the witness have the accused under observation?
• Was the observation impeded in any way, such as by passing traffic or other people?
• Had the witness ever seen the accused before and how often?
• What time elapsed between the observation and the subsequent identification to the police?
• Were there any discrepancies between the initial description given by the witness and the actual description of the accused?

The jury must also be warned that:

• Caution is required to avoid the risk of injustice;
• An honest witness may be wrong, even though they are convinced they are right;
• A convincing witness may still be wrong;
• More than one witness may be wrong;
• A witness who recognises the defendant, even if they know them very well, may still be wrong.

Although not specifically mentioned in the Turnbull guidelines, proximity and location are also very important factors in the accurate identification of a defendant. This is because people often associate individuals with particular places.

If I see a colleague 50 yards away across my work's car park then I will be 100% confident of who they are; if I see the same colleague only 10 yards away while on holiday in Spain, then I might not recognise them at all - or, more likely, doubt they are the person I think they are.