WHAT IS 'IDENTIFICATION PARADE' ?

-

 


1. What is 'identification parade' ?


A parade conducted in order to test if a witness is able to identify the accused.

2. Which provision provides for the test of identification parade?


Evidence of an identification parade is admissible under section 9 of the Evidence Act 1950.

3. What is the procedure to conduct an identification parade?


No written law available on constructing an identification parade. 

However, Justice Vernon Ong in Public Prosecutor v Joachim Selvanathan [2009] MLJU 748 has summarised the procedure on conducting an identification parade as follow:-
  1. All persons at the identification parade should be of the same ethnic group & same station in life as the suspect;
  2. The disparity of ages between them should not be large;
  3. The persons in the line-up need not be of exactly the same description;
  4. The identification parade must be held at the earliest opportunity;
  5. Separate identification parades must be held where there are 2 or more suspects;
  6. The witnesses must not be allowed to see the suspect until the moment when everything is ready & they walk in to identify him;
  7. The witnesses must not be given prior assistance via photographs or verbal description;
  8. The suspect should be placed among a number of persons in a row not less than 9 or 10;
  9. The suspect should be invited to stand where he pleases in the row and he may change his position after each witness has been called in;
  10. The witness should be asked if he has any objection to any of the persons present or to the mode of arrangement;
  11. The witnesses should be brought in one by one;
  12. Each witness who has completed the identification parade process should be kept apart from the witnesses who are yet to come;
  13. The officer in charge must ensure that the identification parade is properly & fairly conducted; and
  14. The officer in charge must record every circumstance connected with the identification, the names of the witnesses & their decisions as fully and fairly and carefully.

4. Whether identification parade is necessary to be conducted in every case?


The prosecution was not required to conduct an identification parade in every case. Where the primary issue concerns the identity of the accused or whenever the case against an accused person depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of one or more identification to the accused, which the defence alleged to be mistaken, the guidelines laid down in Regina v Turnbull & Anor [1977] 1 QB 224 need to be followed and an identification parade conducted. (Ahmad Najib bin Aris v PP [2009] 2 MLJ 613)

5. What if the witness saw the accused prior to the identification parade?


In Public Prosecutor v Ayyavoo a/l Subramaniam [2004] 6 MLJ 511, PW6 testified that he had identified the first accused whom he had earlier seen in handcuffs of the police station prior to identifying him at the identification parade. Therefore, the identification of the first accused on the identification parade was superfluous & was of no practical value as it had gone against the rule and the whole purpose of having an identification parade which no doubt should be independent and fair. 

6. What happens if there is a breach of the procedural requirement in conducting an identification parade?


It does not lead automatically to inadmissibility on the evidence of identification parade as long as the parade is conducted fairly. (Muhammad Zakwan bin Zainuddin v PP and other appeals [2020] 8 MLJ 420)

7. Whether the evidence of identification parade conducted after a long period subsequent to the incident is reliable?


In Mohd Aizuddin bin Khamis v PP [2020] 7 MLJ 781, Justice Ahmad Shahrir set aside the conviction and sentence against the appellant as the quality of the identification was not satisfactory. The trial judge failed to consider the fact that the identification parade was conducted 3 months after the incident, so there might be a probability of an honest but mistaken identification by the eyewitnesses. Besides, there was not sufficient and distinct identifying features described by the eyewitnesses.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

APA ITU 'KAWAD CAM' ?

-
Image
  1. Apa itu 'kawad cam'? Pengecaman yang dijalankan untuk menguji samada saksi mata dapat mengenal pasti tertuduh.  2. Apakah peruntukan undang-undang yang membenarkan ujian kawad cam ? Ujian kawad cam diterima sebagai bukti di bawah seksyen 9 Akta Keterangan 1950 .  3. Apakah prosedur untuk menjalankan ujian kawad cam ? Tiada undang-undang bertulis yang menerangkan prosedur untuk menjalankan kawad cam. Walaubagaimanapun, Hakim Vernon Ong dalam kes Pendakwa Raya lwn Joachim Selvanathan [2009] MLJU 748 telah merumuskan prosedur untuk menjalankan kawad cam seperti berikut:- Semua orang yang berada di kawad cam hendaklah terdiri daripada kumpulan etnik yang sama & kategori kehidupan yang sama dengan suspek; Jurang umur antara mereka tidak sepatutnya terlalu berbeza; Mereka yang berada di barisan kawad cam tidak semestinya mempunyai ciri-ciri yang sama; Kawad cam hendaklah dijalankan secepat mungkin; Kawad cam yang berasingan hendaklah dijalankan sekiranya melibatkan 2 ...
Read more

CASE SUMMARY: TENGKU ADNAN BIN TENGKU MANSOR V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2021]

-
Image
  Material Facts The appellant was a Minister in the Federal Cabinet and the secretary-general of UMNO. He was also the controlling shareholder of Tadmansori Holding Sdn Bhd.  In 2013, project "Perumahan Mampu Milik Wilayah Persekutuan" was launched and the appellant requested Tan Sri Chai Kim Kong (SP19), director of Aset Kayamas Sdn Bhd to participate in the project. During the course of the project, the appellant had requested a political donation from SP19 around RM 5 Million to RM 6 Million to be used for 2 upcoming elections. However, SP19 had contributed the political donation to Tadmansori around RM 2 Million, instead of UMNO upon request by the appellant.  Tengku Adnan was then charged under section 165 of the Penal Code  The High Court Decision Tengku Adnan was sentenced to 12 months' jail and fined RM 2 Million after he was found guilty. The High Court held that all 4 elements under section 165 of the Penal Code have been proved by prosecution beyond reaso...
Read more

Selamat Datang

-
 Assalamualaikum dan selamat datang. Saya Amer Haiqal, pelajar tahun akhir LLB UniSZA. Tujuan utama saya wujudkan blog ini adalah untuk berkongsi ilmu dan pendapat saya mengenai isu semasa dan pengetahuan yang saya perolehi. Ilham untuk mewujudkan blog ini datang daripada Tuan guru saya, Tuan Ariff Azami atau lebih dikenali sebagai Loyar Berjurus. Saya menyahut cadangannya untuk mula menulis. Segala ilmu dan pendapat yang saya kongsikan adalah dalam dwibahasa dan saya akan menggunakan bahasa yang mudah untuk difahami oleh pembaca. Terima kasih dan doakan saya sentiasa istiqamah untuk menulis. Jumpa lagi dalam perkongsian saya yang pertama.
Read more