Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
March 19, 2020 10:30 am
"It is trite law that an identification parade is not a sine qua non for identification in all cases where there have been a fleeting encounter with the victim of a crime, if there is yet other pieces of evidence leading conclusively to the identity of the perpetrator of the offence. Therefore, an identification parade will only become necessary where the victim of the crime did not know the accused before his acquaintance with him during the commission of the offence. The law is also settled that an identification parade is very essential and useful whenever there is doubt as to the ability of a victim to recognize the suspect who participated in carrying out the crime or where the identity of the said suspect or accused person is in dispute. But where there is certainty or no dispute as to the identity of the perpetrator of a crime, there will be no need for an identification parade. See; R Vs Turnbul (1976) 3 ALL ER 549; (1977) QB 224 at 228, 234; Ikemson Vs. State (1989) 1 CLRN 1; Adebayo Vs. The State (Supra)"
PER O. ARIWOOLA, J.S.C IN CHIJIOKE UGWU v. THE STATE SUIT NO:SC.196/2015
LEGALPEDIA ELECTRONIC CITATION: (2020) Legalpedia (SC) 26842
LEGALPEDIA ELECTRONIC CITATION: (2020) Legalpedia (SC) 26842
