Under res gestae Ramon might be able to give evidence of what the caller said. Res gestae is only applicable if the statement made is closely associated in time and place with the incident. As the call was not made until the following day res gestae might not apply. Good quality CCTV images are unlikely to be challenged by the defence6. Given the image was of poor quality the courts would dismiss the right to have arrested Mark. They should have had an expert examine the footage to see if they could produce a facial mapping7.
R v Stockwell [1993] 97 Cr App R 260 established the admissibility of facial mapping8. In the Attorney General’s ref (no 2 of 2002)9 four methods of establishing identity from CCTV was identified these included the jury making a comparison of crime scene images without expert evidence10, finding a witness who is known to the defendant recognising them from the images and giving evidence of recognition11 use of a witness not known to the defendant making repeat viewing of the footage so they have acquired special knowledge of the footing12 and expert opinion13. R. v Mitchell [2005] EWCA Crim 731 established that facial mapping evidence was admissible as the jury could compare the CCTV images with the stills in front of them. In R. v Gray14 the defendant appealed on the grounds that the only evidence was facial mapping and the appeal was upheld. In R. v Irons Guardian, October 3, 1990 the judge dismissed the appeal stating if the description was unclear no conviction should apply.
In Irons there were other forms of ID and the conviction was
...Download file to see next pages Read More