Key Facts
- •William Bogie was convicted of robbery, possession of a bladed article, and driving while disqualified.
- •The key evidence was recognition evidence from two police officers, DC Arthur and DC Sengelow, who identified Bogie in CCTV footage from a petrol station.
- •The officers' identification was made in breach of Code D of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) regarding recognition evidence.
- •Some CCTV footage showing Bogie's face without a mask was lost.
- •The defense argued the identification was poor and there was no supporting evidence.
- •The trial judge admitted the recognition evidence, finding the jury could assess its reliability given other evidence and the remaining footage.
Legal Principles
Rules of admissibility of evidence, particularly where police breaches of PACE Codes occur.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), Code D, Section 78 PACE
Test for admissibility of identification evidence: consider if the breaches resulted in unfairness and whether the jury could properly assess the evidence.
R v Yaryare and Others [2020] EWCA Crim 1314
Test for a submission of no case to answer: If the prosecution evidence, at its highest, is such that a jury could not properly convict, the judge must stop the case.
R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039
Standard for appeal against conviction: The Court of Appeal will only interfere if the conviction is unsafe.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, Section 2(1)
Loss of evidence: A stay should only be imposed if the defendant shows serious prejudice preventing a fair trial.
R (Ebrahim) v Feltham Magistrates’ Court [2001] EWHC 130 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; convictions are safe.
Despite significant breaches of Code D, the judge's decision to admit the recognition evidence was reasonable. The officers provided explanations for their identifications, and the jury could assess the evidence against available visual material. The judge's directions to the jury mitigated the risks.