A Domican identification warning is not required where the prosecution case does not depend on whether photo board identifications of a stranger are correct but rather on circumstantial evidence establishing that a person already known to witnesses was present at the time and place of the offence. The distinction between identification of a stranger and recognition by acquaintances may remove the case from the Domican warning requirement where the recognition is uncontested and the real issue is whether the recognised person was present on the relevant occasion.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.