IDENTIFICATION PARADES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3804, 8 February 1927, Page 25

IDENTIFICATION PARADES.

POSSIBILITIES OF ERROR*. A JUDGE’S CRITICISM. AUCKLAND, February 4. x “This man anords u very striking illustration ot Uie danger ot relying ■on Mie eviuence of identification, and 1 am sorry to say that errors occur in our own police identification parades,” said Mr ( Justice Stringer in summing up at the 'rgtrial of Bertram O’Connor (Mr Davis) in the Supreme Court on two charges of indecent exposure. A disagreement resulted, at trie trial during the last criminal session. Air V. K. Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, said that two pupils? of the Epsotn Girls Grammar School had complained pl an incident in Silver road on June 22 list. Ou. July 19. another complaint was received at the school from two pupils. ’1 he girls were directed to 7 retrace their steps- :pnd the school caretaker followed them through Silver road. The girls were again., insulted by a man in a vacant property,!’.but when the caretaker passed he saw A few minutes aiterwards the caretaker saw a man apparently step on to lootpath from the property. He lingered :fijr a few minutes and then walked awayiigiA week later the caretaker was talking’ a oonstable~.when he saw accused approaching up Silver road. Accused fitted the; description of the man who had been observed by the caretaker on July 19. When (accosted accused said he lived at Te Pajjapa and was looking for a friend to assist.* him in moving into another house. He-ideclined to’ indicate the residence of thislpian. At an identification parade one of;, the girls who had witnessed the offence on? June 22 picked out accused. Evidence on these lines was.’given by four schoolgirls, the caretaker of the school and a constable. " ' Mr Davis said the defence wpifld establish a convincing alibi regardirig accused’s movement at the vital times, and evidence was given along these lines. : ' b In reviewing the evidence his Honor said: Much depends on the identification in this case, and I always approach cases of identify with considerable uncertaiuty. Counsel for the defence has rightly referred to famous instances in which great injustices have been done through what appeared to be very credible evidence of identity. The possibilities of efror are found in this very case. One girl selected accused from an identification, parade at the Newmarket Police Station,,(but two girls picked out somebody else. .1 ask you, gentlemen, what would have happened if that disinterested man had been the man. charged. he had not ..a satisfactory al mi he would be .in the same position as the accused. When a person is asked to pick out a man in a poll pi identification parade ho assumes,, that the perso’n wanted must be there. .As the result he selects the man who,.bears the -nearest - resemblance to. the. man who is sought, and unconsciously suspects this person. It is not correct to parade a suspected man with men of different type. Every member of an identification parade should be of .similar stature and- dress. Talfe the case of a black man in a row of white men. If the criminal were black, what would be the value of such identification? It is quite as absurd to stand a short man with half a dozen stalwart constables in* plain clothes. In this case it is clear that the offender did not have a hat on on the occasion. The girls were expecting a man without a hat. Accused was lined up, ana he was the only man without a hat. Unless all the men in the parade had hats, the identification would be open to doubt. Referring to the alibi, his Honor said evidence for the defence offered three witnesses in respect te each ' occasion. It might have tx?en said the evidence of the relatives was open to suspicion, but often the evidence of relatives was the only testimony available to a man during absence from work. The fact that accused had not immediately disclosed his destination when accosted by the plain-clothes constable, was* not against him. “If a stranger stopped me in the street and asked me where I was going, I should probably tell him to mind his own business, and some of you gentle-, men might do the same thing and introduce a fairly strong adjective,” said his Honor. ‘‘lf schoolgirls can make a mistake, it it quite possible for the caretaker to have been honestly in error. It is regrettable that the man who was observed by the caretaker after the second offence was not- detained. It is.in accused’s favour that his explanation of his movements on July 19 was supported by the subsequent alibi. • It would be dangerous to convict in this case.” The jury found accused not guilty, and he was discharged. - -