Evidence from persons familiar with an accused as to similarities between the accused and a suspect in CCTV footage (gait, posture, height, hairline) is admissible as circumstantial evidence where the features would not be apparent to the jury observing the accused in the dock, provided the evidence is not tendered as positive identification. Fresh expert evidence that is necessarily inexact and does not exclude the accused from the range of possible suspects will not establish a miscarriage of justice where there is strong independent evidence of guilt including confessions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.