IDENTIFICATION PARADES
The police Force standing Order provide for rules to be followed in conducting identification parades. They are held to enable eye witnesses to identify suspects who they allegedly saw. A suspect is free to decide whether or not to participate in the identification parade in addition if the suspect is well known to the witness then the parade is not relevant.[1]In this process the eye witness ability to identify is tested with accuracy. The parade rules require that there be eight members in the parade in addition to the suspect and such members should be as far as possible be of similar characteristics as the suspect[2]
In the case of R V Bulatikwa (1941) EACA 46.The officer conducting the parade told the identifying witness ‘you know a man called Bulatikwa whom you say killed your uncle. Come on to the veranda and see if you can find him.’ This was held to be wrong because it was a suggestion that the person to be identified was actually in the parade.[3]
It is not established practice to question a witness who has made an identification at the parade as their reason for doing so. A voluntary comment made by the witness is however admissible it can be received in evidence as part of the identification.[4]
In another case of Simone Musoke V. R, in this case, the Appellant was charged with another person on one count of theft of a motor vehicle and two counts of robbery with violence. The evidence was that on the material day, the accused person had been seen at a funeral and at a bar dressed in a helmet which was readily identified by the prosecution witness. The evidence of identification by the bar owner was rejected by the trial court on the grounds that no questions were put to these witness to elicit reasons for identification. The stolen motor vehicle was found outside the bar and in it was found amongst other things the helmet exhibited at the trial. On Appeal, the issue was whether the evidence of identification was properly disallowed. Court held that it is not established practice to question a witness who has made identification at a parade as to his reasons for doing so. Comments voluntarily made by the witness are often received as part of the act of identification but, answers to questions would be of less value and of doubtful admissibility.
Further the procedure for identification parade was laid out in the case of R V. Mwango s/o Manaa (1936) 3 EACA 39 as follows-
- The accused person is always informed that he may have a lawyer or friend present when the parade takes place;
- The officer in charge of the case does not carry out the identification that he may be present
- The witnesses do not see the accused before the parade;
- The accused is place among at least 8 persons of as similar age, height, general appearance and class of life as him or her as possible.
- The accused is allowed to take any position he chooses and he is allowed to change position after each identifying witness has left if he so wishes.
- Witnesses should not be allowed to communicate with each other after they have been to the parade.
- The practice is to exclude all persons who have no business at the parade;
- Careful notes should be taken after each witness leaves the parade and the notes would include;
- Did the witness identify any person and under what circumstances
- If the witness desires to see the accused walk, hear him speak, see him with his cap on or off, this should be done but all persons in the parade should be asked to do as the witness has requested as a precautionary measure;
- The witness should touch the person he/she identifies
- At the termination of the parade or during the parade, the accused should be asked if he is satisfied that the parade is being conducted in a fair manner and a note should be made of his reply.
- In introducing the witness to the parade, the witness should be told that he will see a group of people who may or may not include the suspected person;
- Throughout the parade, it is critical that the parties conducting the parades should act fairly to avoid depreciation of identification as evidence. It is dangerous or wrong to suggest to the identifying witness that the person to be identified is believed to be in the parade.[5]
Suspects
The rationale behind identification parades is to show to a victim or a witness, persons of similar physical character, height, age and general body appearance, in order to ascertain whether the suspect can be identified as the perpetrator. These parades, therefore, test the veracity of any witness claims that the suspect is indeed the person they saw commit the crime. Conducting an identification parade is not mandatory, particularly where the identity of the accused is not in dispute. Therefore, failure to conduct one does not necessary invalidates an arraignment, but may only weaken the prosecution case. Generally, identification parades form part of the evidence gathering process and as such are not deemed a judicial process. [6]
Evidence gathering
They are governed by the police force standing orders, which stipulate the rules that ought to be followed when they are being conducted. Under these standing orders, it is the right of every accused person whose identity is in question to have an identification parade conducted and to be informed by the officer that an identification parade is taking place.He is also entitled to have a legal representative or friend present during the parade. Further, no witness shall be allowed to see the accused prior to the parade.As pertains to the composition of the parade, the rules provide that the accused must be placed amongst at least eight persons of similar general appearance. Neither the accused person clothing nor any of his unusual physical features such as a scar or a tattoo should influence his identification, and steps must be taken to conceal such scars or visible marks.[7]
Suspects’ rights
At the parade, the accused has a right to take up any position that he wishes. He may also change his position as frequently as he wishes where the witnesses are more than one. Witnesses may not be allowed to communicate with each other during the parade. It is equally vital that the witnesses do not communicate with the police officers in charge of the parade and that an independent officer conducts the parade.Upon identifying the accused person, the law requires that the witness actually touch the accused. This quintessentially removes any doubt as to the identity of the accused. If the witness desires to hear the accused speak, or even walk, he is allowed to make such requests. Lastly, at the end of the parade, a record shall be made by the police officer conducting the parade and he shall ask the accused if he is satisfied with the parade and record his reply in same form.[8]
[1] Procedure in criminal law by MomanyiBwonwongapg 67
[2]Mboche and another vs. R (1973) E.A. 95
[3]In the case of R V Bulatikwa (1941) EACA 46
[4]http://www.kenyalawresourcecenter.org
[5]R V. Mwango s/o Manaa (1936) 3 EACA 39, http://www.kenyalawresourcecenter.org
[6] Police Force standing Order
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
