## Facts

- The appellant, Turnbull, was convicted largely on the basis of eyewitness identification evidence.
- Prior to this case, several miscarriages of justice occurred due to reliance on mistaken eyewitness accounts.
- Concerns had arisen about the reliability of visual identification, leading to judicial scrutiny and the commissioning of the Devlin Report.
- R v Turnbull was heard by the Court of Appeal to address these concerns and to formalize judicial procedures surrounding identification evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether identification evidence can be relied upon for conviction in circumstances where it forms the primary or sole evidence against the accused.
2. What judicial directions are necessary to guide juries in evaluating eyewitness identification evidence.
3. Whether and under what circumstances expert evidence on the reliability of eyewitness testimony should be admitted.
4. How juries should assess the quality and quantity of identification evidence in the context of criminal trials.

## Decision

- The Court established formal guidelines requiring trial judges to direct juries on the unique risks of eyewitness identification evidence.
- Judges must caution juries on the possibility of honest but mistaken identifications and explain the reasons for this warning.
- The jury must be guided to scrutinize the circumstances of identification, including factors such as distance, lighting, and observation duration.
- Where identification evidence is weak or uncertain, judges are required to highlight these weaknesses to the jury.
- The Court indicated that the qualitative value of identification evidence must be prioritized over the mere number of identifications.
- Courts generally remain reluctant to routinely admit expert testimony on eyewitness reliability, emphasizing the sufficiency of proper judicial directions.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial directions must highlight the natural risks in eyewitness identification and advise special caution.
- The quality, not just the quantity, of identification evidence is critical, as multiple mistaken identifications may occur.
- Even convincingly given eyewitness evidence may be unreliable and should be critically assessed based on contextual factors.
- The jury remains the proper body to assess reliability, with expert evidence on eyewitness identification typically excluded except in limited contexts.
- The Turnbull guidelines provide a mandatory framework for directing juries in cases dependent on visual identification.

## Conclusion

R v Turnbull established essential judicial guidelines for managing and evaluating eyewitness identification evidence to mitigate the risk of wrongful convictions, mandating clear jury instructions about the reliability and assessment of such evidence. The judgment remains a key authority for proper judicial practice in cases reliant on visual identification in criminal trials.


R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224