Ezekiel s/o Peter v. R., Crim. App. 20-DSM-72, -/-/72, Mwakasendo, Ag. J.

Ezekiel s/o Peter v. R., Crim. App. 20-DSM-72, -/-/72, Mwakasendo, Ag. J.

The appellant was convicted of burglary and robbery with violence and now appeals. The conviction was based in part upon the identification of accused at an identification parade, which was described b the police officer who arranged it as follows: “I arranged an identification parade on the morning of 19/6/1971 and Ezekiel Peter was identified by Teckler and her two children.”

            Held: (1) “This piece of evidence is far from being satisfactory. If an identification parade is to be of any value at all in identifying the perpetrator of a crime under investigation it is necessary for a detailed description of the method followed in conducting the parade, the participants, the names of the officer /officers conducting the parade and the names of the identifying witnesses to be given in evidence. The method of identification that should be followed is as set out in the case of Rex vs. Mwango s/o Nanaa (1936) E.A.C.A 29. “Instruction for identification parades: (1) that the accused person is always informed that he may have a solicitor or friend present when the parade takes place. (2) That the officer in charge of the

 case, although he may be present, does not carry out the identification. (3) That the witnesses do not see the accused before the parade. (4) That the accused is placed among at least eight persons, as far as possible of similar age, height, general appearance and class of life as himself or herself. (5) That the accused is allowed to take any position he chooses, and that he is allowed to change his position after each identifying witness has left, if he so desires. (6) Care to be exercised that the witnesses are not allowed to communicate with each other after they have been to the parade. (7) Exclude every person who has no business there. (8) Make a careful note after each witness leaves the parade, recording whether the witness identifies or other circumstance. (9) If the witness desires to see the accused walk, hear him speak, see him with his hat on or off, see that this is done. As a precautionary measure it is suggested the whole parade be asked to do this. (10) See that the witness touches the person he identifies. (11) At the termination of the parade or during the parade ask the accused if he is satisfied that the parade is being conducted in a fair manner and makes a note of his reply. (12) In introducing the witness tell him that he will see a group of people who may or may not contain the suspected person don’t say, “Pick out somebody”, or influence him in any way whatever. (13) Act with scrupulous fairness, otherwise the value of the identification as evidence will depreciate considerably”. The whole object of conforming strictly to the rules on identification is to remove any chance of error. It is in short a precaution against error. In the instant case, I am far from being certain that the three identifying witnesses could not have been mistaken in their identification of the accused”. (2) Appeal allowed and conviction quashed.