R. v. Anderson, 2014 BCPC 71
[31] In assessing the strength and reliability of eyewitness identification evidence, the trier of fact must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding that identification. The Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Hibbert 2002 SCC 39 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 445, cautioned against “the danger of wrongful conviction arising from faulty but apparently persuasive eyewitness identification.” In the Inquiry Regarding Thomas Sophonow: The Investigation, Prosecution and Consideration of Entitlement to Compensation (2001) (known as the “Sophonow Inquiry”) ,the commission made recommendations regarding the conduct of live and photo line-ups, and called for stronger warnings to the jury on the dangers of eyewitness identification.
[32] In McWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th edition, at paragraph 32:40:10, the authors have compiled a list of factors for consideration by the trier of fact in considering the reliability of eyewitness identification:
“Accordingly, assessment by the trier of fact must primarily focus on reliability having regard to a number of non-exhaustive factors:
• Time lapse between the event and identification;
• Prior knowledge;
• Opportunity, capacity to observe and conditions surrounding the observation;
• The presence of distinctive features;
• Duration of observation;
• Emotional state, including stress or the presence of violence;
• Collusion, intentional or not;
• Contamination by improper identification procedures such as a show-up or suggestive photo arrays;
• Cross-racial identification;
• The amount of detail, including physical descriptors which may increase reliability as opposed to generic descriptions;
• Cross-witness comparison of identification and descriptors;
• The absence or existence of corroborative evidence.”
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire