An in-court identification made without compliance with s 114(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 is inadmissible, and where such identification transforms a circumstantial case into one with direct evidence, the jury should be discharged. General directions on the need for caution with identification evidence are insufficient under s 116; the trial judge must identify with the authority of the judge's office the specific weaknesses in the identification evidence, including the displacement effect and the inherent unreliability of dock identifications. The proviso will not be applied where the remaining evidence, though including significant circumstantial material such as a photo identity card found in the complainant's possession, is not of such overwhelming strength that conviction was inevitable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.