Identification warnings under Domican are required even where the defence case focuses on the witness's credibility (not being at the scene) rather than the reliability of the identification, because the jury may reject the primary defence argument and then need to assess the identification evidence on its merits. The distinction between 'recognition cases' and 'identification cases' is of limited utility; the extent of prior familiarity is merely one factor and does not reduce the obligation to give comprehensive warnings where the circumstances warrant them. A trial judge must not direct the jury that identification evidence can be assessed by reference to all other evidence in the case, as identification of the accused is an indispensable intermediate fact that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by reference to the identification evidence itself.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.