Criminal Law Week

Can an informal identification by a police officer be admissible?

Yes, said the Court of Appeal in R v Moss (CLW/11/24/7).

At about 7.25pm on December 25, 2008, a Co-op store in Southampton was broken into and cigarettes worth over £3,000 were stolen. CCTV images captured two or possibly three men breaking into the shop and putting things into what appeared to be a blue duvet cover. On January 14, 2009, a police officer, PC Osmond, went to Southampton police station while off duty to check his emails. As he passed a computer screen at which one of his civilian colleagues was sitting, he happened to see an image taken from the CCTV footage relating to the burglary and said, “that’s Alvin Moss”. He reported the recognition to his superior. He did not make a note of the fact at the time, being off duty, but a week later, when he was back on duty, he made an entry in his notebook, and later provided a witness statement explaining how he had been able to recognise Alvin Moss, in substance saying that he had got to know him through sightings in and around the Southampton district and that he recognised him by certain facial features. On January 21, the defendant, Alvin Moss, was arrested and his photograph was taken. In interview he made no comment but handed in a written statement. His address was searched but nothing was found to link him to the crime. He was charged with burglary. At trial, the defence case was one of alibi, the defendant saying that he had been at home all that day. The judge refused a defence application to exclude PC Osmond’s evidence, and in due course the defendant was convicted. He appealed, arguing, amongst other things, that that evidence should have been excluded.

The court considered the case of R v Smith (Dean Martin) and others (CLW/08/31/2), in which it had given guidance on what steps should be taken when police officers are viewing CCTV recordings with a view to identifying persons present or in the vicinity of a crime. However, it pointed out that the court in that case was dealing with a relatively formal procedure, rather than with recognition in an informal context such as occurred here. In such circumstances, it said that the same degree of formal record-keeping can hardly be expected, but it is important, nonetheless, for the jury to be able to assess the reliability of the recognition. Evidence enabling the jury to do that may be given in different ways. In the present case, PC Osmond’s actions – immediately reporting the recognition to his superior, making a note of it when he was back on duty seven days later, and giving a description of his previous contact with the defendant, and thus an explanation of his ability to recognise him – provided a basis upon which the jury could judge the reliability of his evidence. It accordingly held that the officer’s evidence had been correctly admitted, and that the conviction was therefore safe. The appeal was dismissed.

Does the detention clock continue to run when a suspect is on bail?

Yes, said the High Court in R (Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police) v City of Salford Magistrates’ Court and Hookway (CLW/11/24/3), but, “no”, said Parliament, in enacting the Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011 (CLW/11/27/9) as a result.

At 12.20pm on November 7, 2010, Paul Hookway was arrested on suspicion of the murder of Malcolm Short, who had died two days previously, seemingly as the result of a violent assault. He was taken to Swinton police station, where he arrived at 12.40pm. Under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, this was the “relevant time” for the calculation of the detention time limits. At 13.01pm, his detention was authorised. At 11.40pm the next day, an hour before the basic 24-hour detention time limit was due to expire, a superintendent authorised a 12-hour extension, thereby extending that time limit until 12.40am on November 9. Later that day, on an application by the police, a warrant