IDENTIFICATION PARADE

IDENTIFICATION PARADE

This is a form of opinion evidence in that it is based on facts perceived by a witness. He is saying that “this is the man who committed the crime”.

It may be judicial or extra judicial. Judicial identification is done in open court when the witness identifies the culprit and extra judicial when it is done outside court usually-by process of identification parade. Identification parade is necessary only when the identity of the offender is in doubt, otherwise it is superfluous formality – Imo v. The State (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 694) 314.

This is the placing of the suspected person amongst other people of equal physical appearance, height, age and status to establish whether or not witnesses to the offence are capable of recognizing him. The witness should not be allowed to see the suspect before he is placed in the parade and therefore, must not be marched around or brought out from the cell to the parade. The witnesses must not also be shown photographs of the suspect nor should they be assisted by any verbal description of the suspects. The particular clothes worn on the crime day must not be worn.

An identification parade is only essential in the following circumstances:

1)      Where the victim did not know the accused before and his first acquaintance with him is during the commission of the offence;

2)      Where the victim was confronted by the offender for a very short time;

3)      Where the victim, due to time and circumstances, might not have had the full opportunity of observing the features of the accused person – Ikemson v. State (1989).

Identification parade is not even a sine qua non for identification in all cases where there has been a brief encounter with the victim of the crime and there is some other evidence leading conclusively to the identity of the partakers of the offence. Indeed, it is not even necessary in all cases where the issue of identity is raised – Adeyemi v. State (1991) 1 NWLR 170; Igbi v. State (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 574) at 419.

It should be noted that failure to follow the laid down procedures for identification of a suspect does not render the evidence inadmissible, but goes to the weight to be attached to such identification may be quashed – R. v. Bundi (1910) 5 CAR 270;  it may also be fatal to identity and to the entire case – Omega v. The State (1965) NMLR 58 or (1964) I All NLR 379. 
Follow @wingrassnews

Barr, Ezekiel chigozie has many years experience in providing legal representation and advising clients across an exceptionally broad range of contentious and non-contentious matters. His main goal is to help clients resolve any contentious or non-contentious legal problem they are having rapidly and cost effectively.

Email: victorezekielc@gmail.com

Tel: +2348034997413