Description
Visual identification – source and intensity of light – identification parade – regulation No. 232 of the Police General Orders – dock identification – admissibility – cautioned statement recorded outside the prescribed time without extension.
An appeal against conviction and sentence meted out against the appellants for the offence of armed robbery was allowed due to the following reasons:
- Weaknesses of visual identification – failure by witnesses to disclose the source and intensity of light which aided them in identifying the appellants, since the alleged offence was committed at night.
- The appellants were not previously known to PW3 thus, the latter’s visual identification claim ought to have been preceded by a properly conducted identification parade.
- An identification parade was flawed contrary to Regulation No. 232 of the Police General Orders and, on that account, the visual identification claims by PW3 depreciate to mere dock identification which is valueless evidence.
- Courts’ failure to afford the appellants an opportunity to express whether or not they objected to the admissibility of the motor vehicle (exhibit P1). The exhibit was therefore expunged from the record of the evidence.
- First appellant’s cautioned statement was recorded more than four hours subsequent to his arrest without extension. The Court reasoned that the said statement was improperly adduced into evidence and, for that reason, the same was expunged from the record.
