PACE Code D: Identification Procedures and Police Custody

Introduction

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) sets out rules for fair and lawful policing in England and Wales. Its Codes of Practice explain how officers should use their powers in day‑to‑day work. Code D covers identification. It sets standards for procedures such as video identification, live parades, group identifications, and prompt street identifications. It also deals with photographs, fingerprints and other records used to identify people.

Why it matters: eyewitness identification is prone to error. Code D aims to make identification evidence as reliable as possible, reduce suggestive practices, and protect the rights of suspects and detainees. Breaches can lead to exclusion of evidence under section 78 PACE and, in some cases, the collapse of a prosecution.

This guide breaks Code D into practical parts: what the procedures are, how detainees should be treated, what must be recorded, and how courts respond when things go wrong.

What You’ll Learn

• What Code D covers and when it applies
• The main identification procedures: video ID, live parades, group identification and confrontation/prompt street ID
• How witnesses should be handled, including first descriptions and contamination risks
• Rights during identification: legal advice, appropriate adults, interpreters and fair treatment
• Record‑keeping and disclosure duties, and why the first description matters
• How section 78 PACE and leading cases affect admissibility and weight of ID evidence
• Common pitfalls and practical steps for investigators, defence teams and detainees

Core Concepts

Purpose and scope of Code D

• Code D provides rules for identifying suspects through:
  • Witness‑based procedures (video identification, live identification parade, group identification, confrontation/prompt street ID)
  • Use of photographs and images
  • Fingerprints, footwear impressions and other identification records
• The goals are consistency, reliability and fairness. Officers must avoid suggestion and document decisions and steps taken.
• Code D sits alongside Code C (detention and treatment). Together they frame how detainees are treated and how evidence is gathered.

First descriptions and witness handling

• Record the witness’s first description of the suspect in their own words, with date and time, before any identification procedure or showing of images.
• Keep witnesses separate and caution them not to discuss what they saw with others or search for images online.
• Avoid single‑person showings (for example, one photograph) unless permitted in narrow circumstances. The process must not steer a witness toward one person.
• Where a composite image (e.g., E‑Fit) is produced, record the process and retain materials, as they may be disclosable.

Identification methods: video, live parade, group and confrontation

• Video identification

  • Generally the default method when practicable.
  • The suspect’s moving or still images are shown among a sufficient number of similar foils.
  • Witnesses view the images independently; the procedure is recorded and timed.

• Live identification parade

  • The suspect stands with volunteers of broadly similar appearance.
  • The suspect can choose their position; distinctive features may be concealed to avoid unfairness.
  • Independent supervision and full recording of the process are required.

• Group identification

  • The suspect is observed among a group (for example, in a public place or controlled setting).
  • Used where video or parade is not practicable or the suspect is unwilling to co‑operate.
  • Steps must be taken to reduce suggestion.

• Confrontation/prompt street identification

  • A witness may be asked to view a detained person shortly after the incident to confirm or refute suspicion.
  • Only used where promptness is necessary; reasons must be recorded.
  • Even here, officers must first obtain the witness’s description and avoid leading comments.

Treatment of detainees during identification

• Information and choice

  • Tell the suspect what procedure is proposed and why.
  • If identification is in issue, and practicable, offer an appropriate procedure; consider requests for a specific method (e.g., a parade).

• Legal advice and attendance

  • The suspect has the right to free legal advice. A solicitor should be allowed to attend the identification procedure unless urgency makes that impracticable.
  • If refused or not available in time, record the reasons.

• Appropriate adults and interpreters

  • Under‑18s and mentally vulnerable suspects require an appropriate adult for identification procedures.
  • Provide an interpreter where needed. All explanations must be understood.

• Conditions and fairness

  • Avoid features that make the suspect stand out (clothing, injuries, marks). Conceal distinctive features where feasible so foils are comparable.
  • Record any refusal to co‑operate. If the suspect declines a parade or video ID, officers may use an alternative procedure, but must document why.

Records, disclosure and consequences of breaches

• Keep a full audit trail:
  • First descriptions, reasons for the chosen method, time and place, identities of those present, instructions given, and outcomes.
  • Retain images, recordings and composites. Note any deviations from Code D and why they occurred.
• Disclosure: provide the defence with first descriptions, selection of foils, footage, stills and all relevant notes. Withholding or late disclosure can be case‑decisive.
• Courts may exclude identification evidence under section 78 PACE if fairness is affected, or they may admit it but give strong directions about its weaknesses.

Human rights and privacy

• Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial): identification must be carried out in a way that supports fairness in the proceedings. Proper procedures and disclosure are central to this.
• Article 8 ECHR (private life): photographs, fingerprints and other biometric records engage privacy. Retention and use must be lawful, necessary and proportionate.
• New technologies (e.g., live facial recognition) raise additional Article 8 issues and require careful justification and safeguards.

Current challenges and risks

• Complexity and speed: fast‑moving investigations can tempt shortcuts. The audit trail is often where cases falter.
• Eyewitness fallibility: memory can be affected by stress, poor lighting, and delay. Procedures must counter these risks.
• Bias and contamination: unguarded comments, media exposure or social media can influence witnesses.
• Technology: use of video systems, digital images and facial recognition needs clear policies and oversight to meet Code D standards and privacy law.

Key Examples or Case Studies

• R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224

  • Context: General guidance on visual identification evidence.
  • Court’s view: Juries must be warned about the special need for caution. Factors include lighting, distance, time of observation, prior familiarity, and time lapse. Where the quality is poor, the judge should consider withdrawing the case from the jury.
  • Takeaway: Even when Code D is followed, weak identification may carry little weight without strong supporting evidence.

• R v Forbes [2001] 1 AC 473

  • Context: Police declined to hold an identification parade when requested.
  • Court’s view: If identification is disputed and a parade is practicable, it should normally be arranged; failure can render subsequent identification unfair.
  • Takeaway: Requests for a parade carry real weight. Ignoring a practicable request risks exclusion under section 78.

• R v Ward (1993) 98 Cr App R 337

  • Context: Failure to disclose all materials from a video identification; the witness selection was tainted.
  • Court’s view: Non‑disclosure and pressure on the witness undermined fairness. The evidence was excluded.
  • Takeaway: Full disclosure of the identification process is essential. Pressure or suggestion can collapse a case.

• Bridges v South Wales Police [2020] EWCA Civ 1058

  • Context: Use of live facial recognition in public spaces.
  • Court’s view: The deployment was unlawful due to insufficient legal framework, inadequate assessment of where it was used and who was on watchlists, and equality impacts.
  • Takeaway: Technology that identifies people engages Article 8 and equality duties. Clear policies and safeguards are required.

Practical Applications

For investigators

• Before any procedure, record each witness’s first description verbatim with date and time.
• Choose the least suggestive practicable method. Video identification is usually preferred; explain and record why another method is used.
• Keep witnesses apart; avoid briefings that mention a suspect’s features beyond the witness’s own description.
• For live parades and video IDs, select foils of broadly similar age, build, ethnicity and appearance. Conceal distinctive features where appropriate.
• If the suspect asks for a parade and it is practicable, arrange one. Record any refusal and reasons.
• For prompt street identifications, record the urgency, the first description, and exactly what was said and done.
• Invite and facilitate attendance by a solicitor and, where required, an appropriate adult or interpreter.
• Preserve and disclose all materials: images, recordings, composites, notes and reasons for decisions.

For defence teams

• Ask for first descriptions, all recordings and images, foil selection criteria, and reasons for the chosen method.
• If identification is in issue, request a parade where practicable. If refused, consider an application under section 78 PACE.
• Test witness reliability against Turnbull factors: lighting, distance, duration, stress, intoxication, time lapse, prior familiarity and any discrepancies.
• Probe contamination: contact between witnesses, exposure to media or social media, and suggestive comments.
• Examine retention and privacy issues where photographs or biometrics are used; consider Article 8 arguments where appropriate.

For suspects and appropriate adults

• Ask for legal advice before taking part in identification procedures; a solicitor can attend in most cases.
• If you dispute identification, you can ask for a parade. The police should arrange one if it is practicable.
• If you are under 18 or vulnerable, you are entitled to an appropriate adult for identification procedures.
• You can raise concerns about suggestive practices (for example, being made to stand out). These should be recorded.

Quality control tips

• Use standard forms and checklists for each procedure.
• Keep timing precise: when the description was taken, when the identification occurred, and who was present.
• If you deviate from Code D, record why. A clear rationale often determines whether evidence is admitted.

Summary Checklist

• Record the first description before showing any images or arranging identification.
• Select the least suggestive practicable method; video ID is usually the default.
• Keep witnesses separate and avoid steering comments.
• Use suitable foils and conceal unique features where needed.
• Offer legal advice; allow attendance by a solicitor.
• Secure an appropriate adult and interpreter when required.
• Explain the chosen method and record reasons, especially for prompt street IDs.
• Preserve and disclose all materials and notes.
• Respond to suspect requests for a parade where practicable.
• Assess identification quality against Turnbull factors; consider supporting evidence.
• Anticipate section 78 challenges where Code D has not been followed.
• Consider Article 6 and Article 8 issues, especially with images and biometrics.

Quick Reference