A man was convicted of assault based on the victim saying he recognized him from social media. The court decided that wasn't good enough evidence because there was no police lineup or other way to check if the victim was right, so they overturned the conviction.
Key Facts
- •Thomas Bracher appealed his conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
- •The conviction relied heavily on the complainant, Connor Knowles-Farrelly's, identification of Bracher.
- •Knowles-Farrelly's identification was based on seeing Bracher on social media over three years and briefly in person once.
- •No formal identification procedure (e.g., identification parade) was conducted by the police.
- •The CCTV footage was of poor quality and did not allow for clear identification.
- •Bracher did not give evidence at trial.
Legal Principles
Hearsay evidence
Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 114
Exclusion of evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 78
Recognition evidence vs. hearsay evidence
Case law (discussed but not specifically cited)
Requirement for identification procedures
PACE Codes of Practice (discussed but not specifically cited) and case law: R v Lambert [2004] EWCA (Crim) 154; The Queen v McCartney [2003] EWCA (Crim) 1372
Outcomes
Appeal allowed
The court found the complainant's identification evidence was based primarily on hearsay (social media) and not reliable recognition. The lack of an identification procedure rendered the identification evidence unfair and inadmissible under section 78 of PACE.