Identification parade fairer than photographs

Often the police will want to identify a person visually. The High Court [Alexander v. R (1981) 145 CLR 395] has clearly stated that an identification parade is much fairer to an accused person than photographic evidence.

Right to refuse

A person has a choice about whether to participate in a lineup and legal advice should be obtained before agreeing to take part if the person is a suspect. Other identification, for example, a photo board of similar persons, may be used to identify a suspect.

What is fair procedure for a line-up?

In an identification parade a suspect must be placed amongst nine other people of similar physical type. For example, if witnesses describe a suspect as having a dark complexion, it would be unfair to place him in a line up with persons of fair complexion. A suspect can choose where to stand in a line-up. If there is more than one witness, the suspect can move to a different place in the line before each new witness enters the room.

Practice where there is more than one witness

It is important if there is more than one witness that they be kept separate from each other so they cannot discuss the process. This prevents one witness contaminating the mind of another witness as to who the suspect may be. If a witness fails to identify a suspect in a line up, this can be used in court as evidence of the person's innocence.

Evidence of refusal to participate

Evidence that a person refused to take part in an identification parade is admissible in court. A parade conducted more informally (in a crowded area, simply because it is less effort for the police) is also generally admissible provided it is not unduly unfair to the person being identified. An accused person should always be given the opportunity to take part in an identification parade. In practice, they do not often occur.

Use of photographic evidence where line-up refused

If a person does not take part in a line-up, the police may seek identification evidence from an array of photographs. This is also admissible evidence in court and does not require the consent of the suspect.