Control street, photographic and image-recognition evidence

Street inquiries before the suspect is known

Where the suspect's identity is not known, Code D paragraph 3.2 permits taking an eye-witness to a neighbourhood or place to look for the person previously seen. Police cannot control all aspects of a public setting, but must follow the principles of formal procedures as far as practicable. Record the description first where practicable, keep witnesses separate, and avoid supplying information or directing attention to a particular individual.

The rule is not a prohibition on asking a witness to look towards a group or in a direction they might otherwise overlook. Nor does every unavoidable indication automatically exclude the result. Where attention was drawn to a person, record why, how it happened, the distance and lighting, and the words used. A neutral opportunity to look is different from “the man in the blue coat is the one we arrested”. Code D paragraph 3.2(b)–(e); Guidance Note 3F.

A spontaneous street sighting should be recorded before discussion converts it into a collective account. Once the information makes the suspect known, paragraph 3.2(d) requires reassessment under the known-suspect provisions for that and other witnesses. An investigator should not continue organising informal single-person encounters merely because the first sighting was legitimate.

Annex E photograph showing: twelve photographs is a different rule

Annex E is the regulated investigative route for showing photographs to an eye-witness while the suspect is unknown. A sergeant or more senior officer is responsible for supervision; permitted operational tasks may be delegated. The first description must already have been recorded, otherwise the procedure is postponed. One witness views privately at a time, without communication with other witnesses. Annex E paragraphs 1–3.

The set contains not fewer than twelve photographs of a similar type. This is a minimum total, unlike the suspect-plus-comparators formula for video and parade. Explain that the person previously seen may not be included, do not allow a decision before the witness has viewed at least twelve, and provide no cue about which photograph to choose. Record the result whether positive, negative or uncertain. Annex E paragraphs 4–5.

If a photograph is selected, further witnesses are not simply taken through the same photographs unless the selected person has been eliminated or is unavailable. The usual next step is the applicable formal procedure for a now known and available suspect. Preserve the whole photograph set, numbering and the witness's actual selection or non-selection regardless of the outcome. If a later formal procedure is arranged, the suspect or solicitor must be informed of the earlier photograph showing as required by the Code. Annex E paragraphs 6 and 9–12.

This sequence prevents two errors: treating unknown-suspect photograph showing as an unrestricted substitute for a formal known-suspect test, and pretending that a later formal selection is independent of the earlier photograph. The earlier exposure may explain either recognition of the offender or recognition of the photograph. It is evidence to examine, not something to erase from the history.

Part B arranged recognition: test familiarity, not suggestion

Part B applies where a person who was not the original eye-witness is deliberately shown images and asked whether they recognise someone already known to them. It includes police officers. Unlike a formal Part A procedure, it does not invariably require administration by an independent identification officer. But the absence of that requirement does not authorise shared viewing or a named suspect being suggested as the answer. Code D paragraphs 3.34–3.35.

Viewers should act individually, without communicating with one another, receiving information about other recognitions, or being reminded of an image or description to steer their answer. They must be told that a familiar person may or may not appear. Ordinarily they view the whole material at least twice before deciding; where the volume makes a second complete viewing unreasonable, that decision must be recorded. Repeated viewing and freezing an image are allowed. Code D paragraph 3.35.

The record must expose the basis of the claimed recognition. Record what the viewer knew or was told beforehand, who supplied it, who arranged and attended the viewing, its time, place and duration, relevant familiarity with the location and person, the words of recognition, doubt and the feature which triggered it. Give the person an opportunity to check the record. “Officer recognised defendant” omits the information needed to assess reliability. Code D paragraphs 3.36–3.37.

Police experience is not automatic proof of recognition. Regular, recent dealings with a person may provide a different foundation from having once seen a custody photograph. The tribunal needs that factual foundation, not merely an officer's job title. Keep genuine recognition distinct from a viewer adopting information that someone else supplied. A controlled exercise contaminated by prompting remains a defective Part B exercise; it is not reclassified as Part C simply to excuse the defect.

Part C circulation: preserve what the witness encountered

Part C covers images or descriptions circulated through national or local media, social media, or police communication systems without the controlled individual viewing of Part B. Retain the published material and record the circumstances of responses. For published material under paragraph 3.38(a), the suspect or solicitor should be allowed to view it before a later formal procedure where practicable and without undue delay. The Code also requires that a later eye-witness be asked after the procedure whether they previously saw a published image or description, with the circumstances recorded. Code D paragraphs 3.38–3.40.

That after-procedure question is not permission to conceal already known contamination from the identification officer or defence. It is a safeguard against introducing a fresh cue immediately before the witness makes the formal selection. Establish known exposure from existing records without showing the witness new suggestive material. Responders to publication or circulation should be asked as soon as practicable about the circumstances, using the Part B recording questions so far as applicable. Code D paragraph 3.41; Guidance Notes 3B and 3H.

For social-media material, preserve the original image, crop or enhancement, caption, name, comments asserting guilt, the witness's access to those comments, and discussions with others. These are practical applications of the Code's recording requirements. A later orderly video procedure cannot make the witness forget what they previously saw. Equally, earlier social-media exposure does not invariably make all subsequent identification evidence inadmissible. The court must consider the original opportunity, the influence of the exposure, the remaining safeguards and fairness. PACE section 78; Crown Court Compendium, Part I, section 15-1, paragraphs 6–7.

Identification in the dock

A dock identificationGlossary termDock identification occurs when a witness identifies the defendant in court. It is suggestive because the defendant is visibly singled out as the accused. It is not a routine way to repair a missed Code D procedure or an earlier failure to identify. Raise the issue before the witness is invited to point out the defendant; once that suggestion has occurred, an instruction may not undo it. PACE section 78; ForbesKey caseR v Forbes[2001] 1 AC 473, paragraphs 23–30; Crown Court Compendium, Part I, section 15-1, paragraph 9.

Do not describe all in-court identification as automatically prohibited. Ask whether there was a previous identification, whether a fair earlier procedure was offered and its result, why courtroom identification is now proposed, what the witness actually remembers, and whether there is new information rather than an invitation to select the only obvious candidate. A witness confirming an earlier identification and a witness making their first identification of a visibly isolated defendant are not evidentially equivalent. The remedy turns on fairness and the surrounding evidence, not the word “dock” alone.