Michael Woodcock v R
[2023] EWCA Crim 333
R v Imran Sabir
16 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 804
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of rape based mainly on the victim's identification. The judge didn't properly explain to the jury why the victim's identification might be wrong (like inconsistencies in her story and another witness contradicting her). Because of this mistake, the court decided the conviction wasn't safe and let the man go free.
Key Facts
- •Imran Sabir (appellant) convicted of two counts of rape in October 2021, sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.
- •Case involved multiple defendants accused of raping the same woman over 11 months; complainant's account of sexual intercourse with many men was undisputed.
- •Appellant's defense was mistaken identity; he denied ever meeting the complainant.
- •The Crown's case relied on complainant's identification, evidence from a council tax record, and appellant's statement.
- •Complainant's identification was inconsistent in different interviews and omitted appellant's distinctive physical characteristics (eczema, lazy eye).
- •Sheila Carruthers, a tenant in the flat where rapes allegedly occurred, testified she lived there during the indictment period and didn't allow parties, contradicting complainant's testimony.
- •The trial judge's summing up failed to adequately address weaknesses in the identification evidence, including inconsistencies in complainant's statements and Carruthers' contradictory testimony.
Legal Principles
In directing the jury on identification, the judge should go beyond general warnings and identify specific relevant aspects of the evidence, both supporting and undermining identification.
R v Turnbull, R v Elliott (Denerick), R v Edwards (Adrian), R v I, Crown Court Compendium 2018
Any weaknesses in the identification evidence must be drawn to the attention of the jury. Evidence supporting or undermining identification must be identified. The direction must be tailored to the evidence and arguments raised.
Crown Court Compendium 2018
It is not enough to merely identify weaknesses in identification evidence without explaining why they are weaknesses.
R v I
Absence of an adequate Turnbull direction, tailored to the facts, may render a conviction unsafe.
R v Holmes
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
The judge's summing up failed to adequately address the weaknesses in the identification evidence, rendering the conviction unsafe. The failure to draw together the points undermining the identification, and explain their significance, was a serious flaw.