A jury is entitled to compare CCTV photographs with the accused's appearance in the dock and arrest photographs, and to conclude on that basis alone that the accused is the person depicted, provided the photographs are of sufficient quality. Expert anatomical comparison evidence identifying and categorising physical features observable in CCTV footage is admissible where the expert brings training and experience beyond lay capacity, even where the expert is not a specialist in digital imagery, provided the expert has sufficient practical experience with such images. Evidence of possession of distinctive clothing similar to but different from that worn by a suspect is admissible as circumstantial evidence of shared taste or subgroup membership.
The full text is available to signed-in members.