Introduction
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) introduced a comprehensive framework designed to regulate police powers and safeguard the rights of individuals within the English criminal justice system. A core component of this legislation is the series of Codes of Practice, which provide detailed guidance on specific procedures. Code D of these codes establishes guidelines for the identification of suspects and the treatment of those detained, ensuring that the collection of evidence is conducted fairly and that the rights of the individual are protected. This code is technically concerned with identification procedures, such as video identification, identity parades, and fingerprints, but extends to broader considerations of how detainees are handled during the investigative process. The code seeks to standardize police practices and reduce the potential for miscarriages of justice. The main requirement of Code D is to ensure the accuracy and reliability of identification evidence, while simultaneously promoting respectful interactions between the police and those they encounter.
The Purpose of Code D
Code D of PACE aims to provide a structured approach to the identification of suspects, minimizing the potential for errors and misidentification. The framework is specifically designed to address issues arising from unreliable evidence and improper procedure, which were previously significant factors in wrongful convictions. The regulation primarily focuses on various identification techniques, such as identity parades and video identification, ensuring that these are carried out in an objective and impartial manner. By outlining requirements regarding the conditions under which these processes must take place, the code helps to reduce the risk of police influence on witness testimonies and ultimately, it seeks to promote a balanced approach. The technical principles within Code D require that procedures are structured to prevent any suggestions or influence which may lead a witness to select a particular suspect based on anything other than their own recollection. The regulations insist that there is consistency and that each individual is treated without discrimination, in line with the overarching objective of the legislation to standardize police practices. These standards are important in determining admissibility of evidence in court and they provide protection for both the public and the police.
Key Identification Procedures
Code D covers numerous identification procedures, including identity parades, group identifications, and video identification. An identity parade requires the suspect to stand among a group of people who share a similar physical appearance, with the witness then identifying the person they believe to be involved in the offence. The specific requirement is that, to ensure impartiality, the selection of individuals for the parade must be made without prejudice and that there must be a fair and objective process for the witness to make their selection. Group identifications are similar, but they often take place informally and not necessarily with an overt process of formal selection. Code D prescribes that all reasonable steps must be taken to prevent any manipulation of the process, including ensuring the environment is not unduly suggestive. Video identification, which involves presenting witnesses with recordings of individuals, is also governed by specific protocols. It is important for police to prevent any prior knowledge of the suspects, to minimize the possibility of any suggestive influence. The overall requirement of Code D is that regardless of which identification procedure is used, they must all be structured to ensure reliability. The guidance provided is intended to prevent any unnecessary risk of misidentification or manipulation which could compromise the fairness of the investigation and any subsequent trial.
Treatment of Detainees During Identification
Beyond the procedures themselves, Code D regulates how suspects are treated during the identification process. This covers numerous practical issues including the maintenance of their rights. Suspects must be informed of their right to have legal representation present during identification procedures and they must be given sufficient information about what is going to happen and why. Code D also includes requirements that they are treated fairly, respectfully, and with dignity. Specific protections are afforded to vulnerable individuals, such as children or those with mental disabilities, including the need for appropriate adults to be present during any procedures. The regulations stipulate that police must document every aspect of the identification process, from the initial briefing of the witness to the formal conclusion, with records being accurate, detailed, and available for examination. These guidelines are designed to provide oversight, to promote transparency, and to ensure that no suspect suffers disadvantage through inappropriate treatment. All actions taken must be capable of justification based on the letter of Code D and if not, such a breach can lead to evidence being declared inadmissible in court.
Code D and the Exclusion of Evidence
The impact of Code D extends into the judicial process by giving the court the power to exclude evidence which has been gathered improperly. Section 78 of PACE 1984 provides that courts can exclude evidence if it has an “adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings." In cases where identification procedures have not complied with the guidelines set out in Code D, judges may rule that such evidence should not be admitted, thereby safeguarding the suspect against miscarriages of justice. This provision encourages full compliance with the code and it demonstrates to police that a failure to follow the correct procedures may undermine any subsequent prosecution. Such a judicial approach has the effect of reinforcing the need for consistent and proper conduct at all stages of the investigation, and therefore helps to prevent unfair or prejudicial cases from reaching court. This judicial discretion acts as a safeguard, ensuring that the rights of the individuals remain paramount in all police investigations. In the case of R v Ward (1993) 98 Cr App R 337, the Court of Appeal found that the police had failed to disclose all the evidence from the video identification procedure which demonstrated that the witness only selected the defendant under duress. This is a good example of how a court will use their powers to exclude evidence that has been unfairly obtained.
Challenges and Criticisms of Code D
Despite the positive influence of Code D there have been instances of challenges and criticisms. The primary issue tends to surround the complexity of the code itself, which some have argued, can make it difficult for officers to apply correctly, particularly in fast-paced scenarios. Another contention relates to the subjective interpretation of "reasonable suspicion" by police officers when initiating the identification procedures which means there can be inconsistency in the way the code is applied. This subjectivity can, at times, result in over-targeting of particular groups or communities, although Code A specifically addresses that such suspicion cannot be based on general stereotypes. It has also been argued that the code does not fully address the potential for unintentional bias and errors in eyewitness identification, which is a recognised weakness in this area. The continued evolution of identification technologies also requires regular updates to Code D to accommodate new advancements and to address associated issues. These criticisms demonstrate the continued need for ongoing review to ensure that the code remains effective and fair in the evolving landscape of criminal investigations. The intention of the legislation is to constantly evolve to meet the ever-changing face of modern crime.
Code D and Human Rights
The principles of Code D are closely connected with the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly in their application to ensuring fair treatment for all individuals and in the prevention of wrongful convictions. By aligning with the core principles of human rights law, Code D seeks to uphold the dignity of those under police scrutiny and to guarantee that they are treated with fairness and objectivity at all stages of the process. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, is directly linked to the objectives of Code D because accurate identification is a core element in ensuring a fair trial. The rules that surround access to legal representation and the need for an appropriate adult for vulnerable individuals also further support the principles established within both Article 6 ECHR, and section 78 of PACE. Furthermore, Article 8 of the ECHR, which establishes an individual’s right to a private and family life, is also connected to Code D through its impact on limiting unwarranted intrusions into individuals lives. This is particularly relevant where surveillance is used. Overall Code D aims to ensure that identification procedures are undertaken in a manner that respects these rights and promotes fair and objective treatment by police.
Conclusion
The Code of Practice D of PACE represents an important advancement in the pursuit of fairness and accountability within police work. Its technical components regarding identification procedures and the treatment of detainees are a foundation of the English criminal justice system. The code sets clear requirements for the collection of evidence, emphasizing the importance of objectivity, impartiality and procedural rigor. The application of this code impacts judicial proceedings by granting the court power to exclude evidence that is obtained unfairly. This power creates a direct link between the police practices, their conduct during the investigation, and the judicial process. Despite any criticisms, Code D remains an essential part of ensuring that the rights of all individuals are respected, and that there is a reduction in miscarriages of justice. The code requires ongoing assessment to ensure it maintains its integrity and continues to accommodate the modern realities of law enforcement. The specific measures that it sets out, and its impact on the judicial process, are examples of how the justice system seeks to balance the practical need to investigate crime with the protection of individual rights and liberties.
