Regina v. Spatola [1970] 3 O.R. 74-84 (C.A.) is an older case with a useful comment regarding recognition evidence:
Bare recognition unsupported by reference to distinguishing marks, and standing
alone, is a risky foundation for conviction even when made by a witness
who has seen or met the accused before. Of course, the extent of
their previous acquaintanceship must have a very important bearing on the
cogency of the identification evidence, as will the circumstances in which the
alleged recognition occurred. Where some distinguishing marks are noticed and
later verified, there is a strengthening of credibility according to the nature
of such marks. But the initial issue of the caution with which
identification evidence must be received, particularly where it is the
unsupported evidence of one witness… .
No comments:
Post a Comment