Advanced Search

How to use this Legal Guidance

CPS Public Consultations

We want to hear your views about our prosecution policy and so we conduct consultations to help inform our policy making.

There are currently no active public consultations but visit the consultations page to view expired consultations and reports

Home » Professionals » Legal Guidance » H to K » Identification of suspects

Identification of Suspects

This Guidance was last updated 15th November 2007

Important Note

All references in this Legal Guidance are references to the current Code D of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which came into effect on 1 January 2006. A degree of caution needs to be exercised in citing authorities relating to earlier versions. The substantial changes made in the 2006 code relates to taking foot wear impressions, and photographing suspects other than at a police station.

The revised Codes of Practice are at Annex A

1. Introduction

This introduction provides an overview of the contents of this section.

Where a suspect disputes identification, the prosecution will be put to proof that the defendant is, beyond all reasonable doubt, the person who committed the offence.

This section considers the different types of evidence that should be considered by prosecutors, and what sort of quality is required to secure a conviction, it also considers whether or not the issue of identification is relevant or not.

For example what happens when the defence alleges that a witness is lying, is identification an issue or not? What happens when the defendant admits to being at the scene when the offence is committed?

The section will also consider the type of evidence that should be requested from the police and also what other types of evidence may improve and support the identification evidence.

The guidance also considers the police procedures as provided for by the Codes under PACE, both when the suspect is known, and when he is not. The guidance takes account of the changes brought about by the revised Code D of Practice, which is effective for identification procedures taking place after midnight on 31 December 2005. The revised Code D can be found on the Home office website.

2. Visual Identification - Relevant Cases

2.1 Is the Witness Identifying a Person?

In Dance v DPP (Div. Court CO/2103/98 and TLR 7/8/98) the Divisional Court analysed one set of circumstances, in which the witness described the clothing and approximate ages of two young men which led to the arrest of two young men.

"...there was nothing in Mr. Challice's description which bore upon the facial appearance, colouring, build, height, or manner of walking or moving of those he had seen ... an identification parade could have served no useful purpose.

In R v Doldur Crim.LR 2000 178 the Court of Appeal stated that no parades were necessary if a witness purported to identify a distinguishing feature such as clothing only rather than the offender <see Archbold 14-28>

See also R v Nicholson (2000) 1 Cr App. R 182.

2.2 Lies/Frame-up

Where the defence is likely to be that the witness is lying, for whatever reason, the quality of the identification evidence is not an issue. The leading case is R v Courtnell (1990) Crim.LR 11 in which the prosecution case depended wholly on evidence of a manager of a public house. The defence was one of alibi, and it was held at the outset by the defendant that the landlord was "stitching me up". As the Court of Appeal stated; "The sole issue was the veracity of S; the defence did not allege he was mistaken. A Turnbull direction (1977 Q.B 224), in those circumstances would only have confused the Jury". Courtnell was followed in R v Withers (91/3171/Z3 - 25/1/93) reported at para T-15 of the Archbold Criminal Index.

A frame-up was again alleged in R v Cape, Jackson and Gardener 1996, 1 Cr.App.R 191. In a case similar to Courtnell, the Judge gave no direction to the Jury as to how to approach the question of identification in the case of two of the defendants, who alleged that the witness was 'framing them'. See also Shand v R (1996) Crim. LR 422 and R v Beckles and Montague (1999) Crim.LR 148.

2.3 Presence at the Scene Not Disputed

This section addresses the position regarding identification when a defendant admits presence but denies involvement at the scene of an offence? This issue can arise during the course of the defence case as well as being revealed on the prosecution papers. The most helpful authorities are set out below.

In R v Curry and R v Keeble (1983) Crim.LR 73 , the Trial Judge had told the jury to be aware of the risk of mistaken identification, and to evaluate it, and that the risk would be high where the sighting had only been a fleeting glance, but that in every case it was a matter of degree. He then went on to remind the Jury of the circumstances. The defence appealed on the basis that there should have been a full Turnbull warning. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal stating that the warning in Turnbull, was not intended to deal with every case involving a minor identification problem (following Oakwell 1978, 66 Cr.App.R. 174) but only with the ghastly risk run in cases of fleeting encounters.

In R v Andrews (1993 Crim.LR 590), three men attacked and kicked the victim. Officers witnessed the assault. Andrews ran off but was found in a street nearby and behaved aggressively on arrest. He denied being involved in the attack though he said he had witnessed it. The Trial Judge did not give a Turnbull warning, reminding the Jury that the identification of Andrews was not as clear as the other two but said that on the Police evidence the Officer's description fitted Andrews. His appeal was allowed because the Judge effectively withdrew the accuracy of the description from the Jury by saying "quite plainly that was John Andrews - certainly he is extremely well built". "It would also have been at least prudent for a Turnbull direction to be given".

This principle was reaffirmed in R v Thornton (1995 1 Cr.App.R 578) where the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of a defendant who gave evidence that he was present at a wedding reception where a violent assault had occurred. He said he was the one who went out to help the victim up and found himself identified.

The Court noted that;

"The Judge ought to have given the Jury the full warning in accordance with the direction in the case of Turnbull ...there were others similarly dressed to the appellant at the reception and a mistake was clearly possible".

However, in R v Slater, (1995 Crim.LR 244) the Court of Appeal qualified the case of Thornton. An assault took place in a nightclub, and Slater said he had been present and had been aware of a disturbance but that he was but not involved. The Trial Judge said that he was not sure that strictly it was an identification case and gave no full Turnbull direction.

The appeal was dismissed and the Court held: -

  • The need for a direction arises only where there is the possibility of mistaken identification. Where there is no issue as to the accused's presence at, or near the scene, but the issue is as to what he was doing, it does not automatically follow that the direction must be given. It will be necessary where the possibility exists that a witness may have mistaken one person for another, for example because of similarities of build or clothing etc.
  • The Court pointed out that the case of Thornton was not authority for a mandatory direction
  • "It would be contrary to commonsense" to require the direction in all cases where presence is admitted but conduct disputed.

See also R v Hope, Limburn and Bleasedale 1994 Crim.LR 118.

R v McMath 1997 - conviction quashed after failure to hold a parade despite defendant's admission to being present at an affray.

2.4 Eyewitness and Other Compelling Evidence

In Rutherford and Palmer 98 Cr.App.R. 191 (a case based on the old Code and the defendant's right to request a parade) no parade was held despite the fact there were witnesses who said they had a reasonable prospect of making identification. This was held to be a breach despite the otherwise strong evidence. As the case against the defendant was strong the appeal was dismissed.

2.5 Relevant Principles from Case Law

  • Where a witness indicates there is no reasonable possibility of picking out the culprit on a parade, then it is pointless holding one even if the defendant requests one. (Montgomery and R v Forbes.
  • If a witness indicates there is a reasonable possibility of picking out the culprit, and other strong identification evidence is available (fingerprints, DNA, found in possession of property etc) then it might be possible to uphold a subsequent conviction if Code D procedures are not used; however, this is risky as Walker and Rutherford and Palmer seem to indicate that a failure to hold a parade would be a breach and if so, despite the strong evidence, may risk upsetting the conviction.

    See also R v Allen 1995 Crim.LR 643.

In R v Kelly TLR 23.2.98, it was held that the failure to hold a parade, although a breach, did not affect the safety of a conviction where the case depended upon "deduction from uncontested evidence", even though the defendant had requested a parade. Strength of other evidence emphasised with or without a parade.

In R v Byron TLR 10/3/99 evidence of a factually descriptive nature, here a tattoo, which in the context of other evidence in the case was highly probative, did not make it evidence of identification.

It has been held that facial mapping evidence cannot be allowed to replace true identification evidence made by eyewitnesses where it had been possible to hold parades but none were held because of CPS advice - R v Walker (Unreported).

Although arguments about the identification evidence do not affect the admissibility of the other evidence, such as fingerprints, DNA or handwriting, they may affect the overall view as to the fairness of a trial or the safety of a conviction under either Article 6 of the ECHR or our own domestic appellate procedures.

2.6 What Constitutes Relevant Information about Identification?

Police should forward copies of all first descriptions given by potential witnesses and recorded in accordance with Code D. This may also include photos of the suspect. Almost invariably, the evidence available to the prosecutor will be the statements of the witnesses. However, care should be taken to consider other source material, such as crime reports that may reveal the first descriptions, police pocketbook entries, tapes of or drafts of preliminary interviews with witnesses, draft statements and interviews with persons who are now witnesses but who may have been interviewed initially as suspects and crime reports.

2.7 Evidence Involving Recognition

There is confusion about the difference between recognition and identification and where one begins and the other ends. See <Archbold 14-19>

Essentially, recognition is a type of identification. This was acknowledged in R v Turnbull.

Thus, even in recognition cases, where mistakes in the recognition of close friends and even relatives are sometimes made, a Turnbull warning is necessary - see R v Bowden [1993] Crim LR 379.

In cases where there has been some form of recognition the risk does not lie in the witness picking out the wrong person at an identification parade, but in the fact that at the time, the person witnessed the offence he was mistaken in his purported recognition of the offender, see R v Thomas (1994) Crim.L.R. 128, CA

When the identification/recognition of a suspect is made by a police officer as a result of previous dealings with that person, the identification is admissible - R v Caldwell and Dixon 1993 CLR 862. Much will depend on the circumstances of the recognition: if it is followed by an immediate arrest, there is no break in the chain from observation to arrest, but if the identifying officer does not immediately arrest the suspect, formal identification procedures should be followed to avoid the risk of the officer's recognition evidence being ruled inadmissible.

2.8 Recognition by Proxy

There is also the case where the recognition is by proxy", that is, recognition of a suspect by reference to his connection to others present at the scene and at the place of arrest. Where such evidence is the only evidence of identification, the Turnbull warning must be given: R -v- Bath 154 JPR 849. Where identification by proxy is not itself the evidence relied on, but is rather evidence supporting the direct identification, the Court of Appeal has held that "the ripples of Turnbull" did not extend so far as to require the Turnbull warning: R -v- Green [unreported] CA 10.4.95.

2.9 Quality of the Evidence

R v Turnbull 1976, 63 Cr App R 132

The guidelines in Turnbull are aimed at assessing the quality of the identification. The court said-

"In our judgement when the quality is good as for example when the identification is made after a long period of observation, or in satisfactory conditions by a relative, a neighbour, a close friend, a workmate and the like, the Jury can safely be left to assess the value of the identifying evidence even though there is no other evidence to support it".

"When in the judgement of the Trial Judge, the quality of the identifying evidence is poor as for example when it depends solely on a fleeting glance, or on a longer observation made in difficult conditions, the situation is very different. The Judge should then withdraw the case from the Jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence which goes to support the correctness of the identification".

The Court of Appeal made the following comment in R v Bentley 1991 CLR 620:-

"A recognition, which was the type of identification evidence here, could not be regarded as trouble free because many people had experienced seeing someone on the street that they knew and later discovered that they were wrong".

The approach to the warning should be flexible. In Mills & Others v The Queen (1995 CLR 884 and TLR 1/3/95) the Privy Council "emphatically rejected the mechanical approach to the Judge's task of summing up" - "R v Turnbull was not a Statute and did not require an incantation of a formula - the Judge did not need to cast his directions in a set form of words".

"All that was required of him was that he should comply with the sense and spirit of the guidance in Turnbull".

The warning should also be given in certain circumstances where video evidence is used. In R v Campbell TLR 20/2/96, a defendant was sighted on video camera and arrested only 10 minutes later. The Court of Appeal (allowing the appeal) stated that there should have been some warning about the dangers of identification evidence.

Flexibility was emphasized in R v Mussell and R v Dalton (1995 Crim.LR 887) which was a case based upon the defence assertion that the Judge, in giving a Turnbull direction, had to remind the Jury of specific weaknesses. The Court of Appeal again said "there were no hard and fast rules ".

The quality of the evidence in each case is unique to each set of facts. The value of identification evidence depends upon a number of factors set out below; however a number of points could be made specifically about the quality of the evidence".

In R v Breslin 80 Cr.App.R. 226 "the quality of the identification evidence rather than its volume is what matters - "The Trial Judge is entitled to direct the Jury that an identification by one witness could constitute support for the identification by another, provided that he warns them in clear terms that even a number of honest witnesses could all be mistaken".

In many cases, the key identification evidence will be provided by police officers. In Reid v R [1990] AC 363, a Privy Council case, the Court rejected the suggestion that police officers were better able to identify suspects accurately than members of the public. In R v Ramsden [1991] Crim LR 295, the Court stated that a witness within the criminal justice system was likely to have a greater appreciation of the importance of his or her identification. This was repeated in R v Tyler (1993) CLR 60.

They should approach the quality of the evidence of an officer in the same way as any other member of the public. Code D applies to police officers who are identification witnesses just as it does to any other such witness.

"An identifying witness who happened to be part of the criminal justice system was likely to have a greater appreciation of the importance of identification and so look for more particular identifying feature. Honest police officers were likely to be more reliable than the general public". See R v Ramsden (1991) Crim.L.R. 295, CA

The quality of the identification sometimes depends upon previous sightings. In R v Slater (1995) CLR 944 it was said that where this applies the Jury must examine each of the relevant previous sightings with care and that they should be so directed in accordance with Turnbull.

2.10 False Alibi

The Jury should be told that proving the defendant a liar about where he was at the material time does not per se prove he was committing the offence. However, if the Jury is satisfied that the sole reason for the false alibi was to deceive them, then that false alibi can provide support for identification.

In R v Long (1973)57 Cr.App.R 871 provides an example of this principle.

2.11 Third Party Identification

In R v Green (10/4/95 Court of Appeal 94/0009/Z3) it was held that the identification of the defendant was supported by an identification of a man, who, it was admitted, had been his companion. Had this "proxy" identification been the only evidence, a Turnbull warning would have been necessary. "The ripples from Turnbull did not extend so far as to require the warning where the proxy identification was not itself the identification evidence relied on, but rather evidence supporting the direct identification ". However, see R v Bath 1990 (Crim. LR 716) - silence under Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 both in interview and failure to give evidence under Section 35.

Useful Links

R v Turnbull 1976, 63 Cr App R 132

Dance v DPP (Div. Court CO/2103/98 and TLR 7/8/98)

R v Doldur Crim.LR 2000 178

R v Courtnell (1990)

R v Curry and R v Keeble (1983) Crim.LR 737

The revised Code D

R v Cape, Jackson and Gardener 1996

R v Green (10/4/95 Court of Appeal 94/0009/Z3)

R v Bath 1990

In R v Breslin 80 Cr.App.R. 226

Archbold 14 (1-66)

In R v Cape, Jackson and Gardener 1996

Annex A

Revised PACE Codes of Practice 1st January 2006

1. Background

The provisions on the power of arrest, the power to search premises, the power to take footwear impressions, and the power to photograph a suspect elsewhere than in a police station came into force on midnight 31st December 2005. The PACE Codes of Practice have been revised to reflect these changes. The statutory and PACE Code amendments are detailed below.

2. Sections 110, 111 and Schedule 7 - Rationalised Power of Arrest

a. Section 110 inserts a new s 24 and 24A into PACE 1984. These provisions remove the distinction between offences that are arrestable and those offences that are not, thereby making all offences arrestable subject to the criteria of necessity.

3. Power of Arrest for Constables

Under new section 24, a constable may now arrest anyone without a warrant if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that:

A person is committing, has committed or is about to commit an offence (new s.24 (1) and (2)); AND

That a constable believes that the arrest is necessary for any of the following reasons (new s. 24(5)):

(a) to ascertain the person's name;

(b) to ascertain the person's address;

(c) to prevent the person;

(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;

(ii) suffering physical injury;

(iii) causing loss or damage to property;

(iv) committing an offence against public decency; or

(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;

(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;

(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;

(f) to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

b. This change prevents the power of arrest from being used in an arbitrary manner and creates a high level of accountability that requires the officer to specifically consider why an arrest is necessary in each case. The power of arrest may only be exercised where it is necessary and proportionate.

c. At the point of arrest the officer must clearly inform the person that they have been arrested, the nature of the offence and the reasons why the officer believes the arrest is necessary. Each arrest must also be justified when the person is presented to the custody officer and the reasons recorded in the custody record.

Concept of "arrestable" and "serious arrestable"

d. As all offences are now arrestable the previous concept of arrestable and serious arrestable offences no longer applies. As a result, other references in legislation to "arrestable offences" have also been amended to "indictable offences". Indictable offences are offences that are triable either way or on indictment.

e. The full list of changes can be found in Schedule 7, Part 3 of SOC&P Act 2005.

"Trigger Powers"

f. This has an impact on the various "trigger powers" that accompanied arrestable and serious arrestable offences. The following table sets out the new thresholds for the use of these trigger powers:

PACE Trigger Power: s4 - Road checks
  • Authorisation Required: Superintendent
  • Previous Threshold: Serious Arrestable
  • New Threshold (from 1.1.06): Indictable
PACE Trigger Power: s8 - Search warrant Magistrate
  • Authorisation Required: Magistrate
  • Previous Threshold: Serious Arrestable
  • New Threshold (from 1.1.06): Indictable
PACE Trigger Power: s17 - Entry for the purpose of arrest
  • Authorisation Required: n/a
  • Previous Threshold: Arrestable
  • New Threshold (from 1.1.06): Indictable
    except for the summary offences listed in s17 (1)(c)(i) to (iiib) and (caa) of PACE.
PACE Trigger Power:s18 - Entry and search after arrest
  • Authorisation Required: Inspector
    unless s18 (5)(b) of PACE applies
  • Previous Threshold: Arrestable
  • New Threshold (from 1.1.06): Indictable
PACE Trigger Power: s32 - Search upon arrest
  • Authorisation Required: n/a
  • Previous Threshold: Any offence
  • New Threshold (from 1.1.06): Indictable
PACE Trigger Power: s42 - Apply for extended detention (to 36 hrs)
  • Authorisation Required: Superintendent
  • Previous Threshold: Arrestable
  • New Threshold (from 1.1.06): Indictable
PACE Trigger Power: s 43 - Warrants for further detention (up to 72 hours)
  • Authorisation Required: Magistrate
  • Previous Threshold: Serious Arrestable
  • New Threshold (from 1.1.06): Indictable
PACE Trigger Power: s 44 - Extension of warrants for further detention (up to 96 hours)
  • Authorisation Required: Magistrate
  • Previous Threshold: Serious Arrestable
  • New Threshold (from 1.1.06): Indictable
PACE Trigger Power:s 56 - Delay right to have someone informed of arrest
  • Authorisation Required: Inspector
  • Previous Threshold: Serious Arrestable
  • New Threshold (from 1.1.06): Indictable
PACE Trigger Power: s 58 - Delay access to legal advice
  • Authorisation Required: Superintendent
  • Previous Threshold: Serious Arrestable
  • New Threshold (from 1.1.06): Indictable

g. As with the changes to arrest the use of "trigger powers" will also be governed by the concept of necessity whereby authorisation must only be given where the use of such powers are necessary and proportionate to the needs of the investigation. These "trigger" powers are subject to specific safeguards and protections and can only be exercised with the specific authority either of a senior officer or a magistrate. These safeguards on the use of the powers will remain in place and continue to prevent any arbitrary use of the trigger powers without the relevant authority or permission.

Power of Arrest for members of the public

h. Under new section 24A, a person other than a constable may now arrest without a warrant if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that:

  • a person is in the act of committing, or to be committing or has committed an indictable offence; AND
  • it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead; AND
  • that the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons listed below, it is necessary to arrest the person in question. The reasons are:

    (a) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;

    (b) suffering physical injury;

    (c) causing loss of or damage to property; or

    (d) making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.

Consequential PACE Code Change

i. As a result of this fundamental reform, a new Code 'G' has been inserted into the PACE Codes and which specifically provides guidance on the power of arrest.

4. Sections 113 and 114 - Search Warrants

a. Currently, section 8 of PACE (power to authorize entry and search of premises) permits police officers to apply to a magistrate for a search warrant in relation to a serious arrestable offence. Following the rationalisation of arrest powers as detailed above, a new threshold has been created so that a section 8 search warrant can only be applied for in relation to an indictable offence; and when an officer can justify to a court that the use of these powers is both necessary and proportionate as part of the investigative process, taking into account the needs of the investigation and the nature of the offence.

Types of warrants

b. Section 113 of the SOC&P Act extends the current provisions under section 8 and Schedule 1 of PACE for the issuing of warrants to search premises and seize evidence. It creates two new forms of warrant so that in addition to the current warrants which authorise entry to one premises on one occasion, the court will also be able to issue:

Multi-premises warrants - which specify more than one premises; or

All-premises warrants - which allow access to all premises "occupied or controlled by" an individual and can enable the police to search premises not specified in the original application where further evidence comes to light during the course of the original search.

c. Section 113 and 114 of SOC&P Act amend sections 8, 15 and 16 of PACE to set out the safeguards for making an application for both a specific premises warrant or an all premises warrant and requires the applicant to justify the need to the court for such warrants to be issued.

Repeated entry warrants

d. Section 113(2) of the SOC&P Act amends section 8 of PACE to enable the court to authorize repeated entry onto a single premises under a section 8 warrant. The officer applying for a warrant authorising multiple entries must justify the requirement, stating the grounds for the request and whether the number of entries sought is unlimited or limited to a specified maximum. The warrant must only be authorised where the justice of the peace is satisfied that it is necessary to authorize multiple entries in order to achieve the purpose for which he issues the warrant. No premises may be entered or searched for the second or any subsequent time unless an officer of at least the rank of inspector has authorised it in writing.

Duration of warrants

e. Section 114(8) of the SOC&P Act amends section 16 of PACE to extend the lifetime of a warrant from one month to three months.

Application to other warrants

f. Although the majority of search warrants are applied for under PACE (section 8 or Schedule (1)) there are other warrants that can be applied for under other legislation, such as the Theft Act 1968 or the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. These warrants are for specific purposes and have specific requirements but remain subject to the same safeguards under section 15 and section 16 of PACE. All none PACE warrants continue to be limited to single entry onto one premises.

Consequential PACE Code amendments

g. Code B has been amended to reflect the changes detailed above.

5. Section 116 - Photographing suspects elsewhere than at a police station

a. Section 116 enables a constable (or in certain cases, CSOs and accredited persons) to photograph suspects elsewhere than at a police station.

b. Subsection 166(5) amends the definition of 'photograph' to include moving images. Therefore the retention provisions in section 64A(4) of PACE will apply to still and moving images of detainees.

Photographs of suspects other than at a police station

c. Section 64A of PACE is amended to enable a person to be photographed, with or without consent, by a constable elsewhere than at a police station.

d. This power is exercisable if one of the following conditions is met:

  • the person has been arrested by a constable for an offence;
  • taken into custody by a constable after being arrested for an offence by a person other than a constable;
  • a person is made subject to a requirement to wait by a CSO;
  • a person is issued with a fixed penalty notice by a constable, CSO or accredited person

(New S 64A (2) (1B))

e. A police officer may use reasonable force to take a photograph elsewhere than at a police station.

f. If a suspect refuses to remove religious garments covering their head and/or face an officer should consider whether it is appropriate to take the suspect out of public view, where the garment can be removed in private.

Retention of Moving Images

g. The definition of a photograph in section 64A of PACE is amended to include a moving image.

h. This allows moving images to be retained in the same way as still images. This will provide standardisation of the practice of retaining images under PACE Code D5 which governs the powers and procedures on the taking and retention of photographs.

Section 118 - Impressions of footwear

i. Section 118 introduces new provisions in section 61A of PACE enabling a constable or detention officer to take a person's footwear impression and use it in a speculative search. Footwear impressions taken from a suspect in custody will also be admissible as evidence in court. This puts the taking, retention and use of footwear impressions on the same statutory footing as fingerprints and DNA.

j. Constables and appropriately designated police staff can take a footwear impression from a detainee at a police station where he has been detained in connection with a recordable offence. Any footwear impressions, whether taken with or without consent, must be taken overtly with the full knowledge of the suspect. Before taking the footwear impression the police should seek the individual's written consent, where consent is not given the impression may be taken without consent. Before taking the impression the individual must be informed of the reason for taking the impression and that reason must be recorded in the custody record.

k. Provisions also allow an officer to conduct a speculative search on a footwear database. The individual must also be informed that the impression may be the subject of a speculative search. The fact that the person has been informed of that possibility must also be recorded in the custody record.

Consequential PACE Code Amendments

l. Code D has been amended to reflect these changes.

m. Other changes to Code D are:

It is now a requirement that any Code D procedure that involves the participation of a witness who is or appears to be mentally disordered, otherwise mentally vulnerable or a juvenile should take place in the presence of a pre-trial support person. However, the support-person must not be allowed to prompt any identification of a suspect by a witness. (New D 2.15A and note 2AB).

Guidance Note 2AB advises that a pre-trial support person should accompany a vulnerable witness during any identification procedure, but that the support person should not be (or not likely to be) a witness in the investigation.

Annex 2 2A provides that if a suspect has an unusual physical feature which does not appear on the images of the other people that are available to be used for video identification, steps may be taken to:

(a) conceal the location of the feature on the images of the suspect and the other people; or

(b) replicate that feature on the images of the other people.

The identification officer has discretion to choose whether to conceal or replicate the feature and the method to be used. If an unusual physical feature has been described by the witness, the identification officer should, if practicable, have that feature replicated. If it has not been described, concealment may be more appropriate."

6. PACE Code C Amendments

a. Along with the amendments necessitated by enactment of SOC&P Act 2005, Code C has been amended to reflect the changes to police powers that have been brought in by the Drugs Act 2005, and which similarly come into force on 1st January 2005. For further guidance on these provisions, please refer to POL 101 2005 (20th December 2005).

b. Copies of the new Codes of Practice can be downloaded from the Home Office website ( http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/)